Skip to main content

Pudd'nhead Wilson strategy to caught criminal by finger impressionion

 Pudd’nhead Wilson is a lawyer who pursue his hobby of storing fingerprints on glass slates of his town Missouri because he generally gets no case or legal matters. Pudd’nhead Wilson came across with a murder case where Angel Capello & Luigi Capello accused for Judge Driscoll murder. The prime witness of Judge Driscoll murder Mrs Pratt testified that she found the accused standing over the Judge Driscoll dead body. The accused take the plea that they heard a loud cry for help from the Judge Driscoll’s room while they had been taking  a walk. They follow the scream and they proceed to the room then they found Judge Driscoll dead body laying on the floor. There is no blood stain on the body & clothes of the accused but on examining it was found that a knife has been used to kill Judge Driscoll that was belong to the Capello brothers. Capello brothers claimed that the knife was stolen the night before the Judge Driscoll murdered. On cross-examined by Wilson, Angel Capello & Luigi Capello were found innocent. 

Judge Discroll has a nephew Tom Driscoll who become a gambler & soon under debt. Tom met Roxana who is one of the slaves of Judge Driscroll’s brother Percy Driscoll. Roxana narrated her story that how she successfully switch her child Chamber & Driscoll Child Tom. Tom realized that he is not a Driscoll but a child of Roxana. Tom Devise a plan to rob his uncle Judge Driscoll in order to settle his debt. He disguised him as a women & stole a knife from Luigi Capello. As Tom entered the house to rob his uncle soon Judge Driscoll raised the alarm and start shouting. Tom in the heat of the movement attacked Judge Driscoll with his knife to protect him & leave the spot from the back gate. Judge Driscoll loud cry heard by the Copello brothers & quickly reached the spot where they found Judge Driscoll Dead body. 

Pudd’nhead Wilson realized that murderer is Tom Driscoll who disguised as women who is witnessed by Misses Clarkson leaving Judge Driscoll Premises by the back a few minutes after the cries for help were heard. In order to prove his contentions Wilson cautiously used his leisure of collecting physical signature of people in the town. The physical signature of Tom Driscoll who is Chamber before switch by Roxana at the time when he was at the age of five Months. He match the finger prints of Tom Driscoll which was accidently left by Tom last night at the Wilson house with the physical signature that was taken by Wilson when Tom was 5 months old. The physical signature matched with the finger prints that were left at the crime spot & the Court convicted Tom for Judge Driscoll Murder. Tom was under trial and sentenced life imprisonment by the verdict of the Court. Angel Capello & Luige Capello were successfully acquitted from the court. Chamber who is Tom Driscoll  before Switch inherited the estates of Driscoll but unable to endorse the Driscoll’s as he could not read nor write, and his attitude, gesture is vulgar as he spend his life as a slave. Pudd’nhead Wilson became Dawson Landing Mayor & become a celebrity overnight.


   
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more