Try asking the following...
The following joint judgment was delivered :-
BUTLER LLOYD, AG. c.J., NIGERIA, CAREY AND BROOKE, J].
One Thomas Udu was charged in the Calabar-Aba Judicial Division of the High Court with causing a common nuisance contrary to section 234 (f) of the Criminal Code.
The particulars of the offence alleged are : -
.. That Thomas Udu at about 12.25 p.m. on the 9th day of May, 1939, at Aba, in the Aba Judicial Division, did make a false report to the Police to wit, .. that his brother was mad, and for this reason, the following people took him on the night of the 3rd May, 1939, to make medicine for him, (I) Uko Nwaekelegbu (2) Agimiri Udo (3) Ayolonum Nwada and (4) Alezuwa Udo, and when the day broke on the night they took him they brought his dead body on which he, the accused, witnessed some wounds" and act not warranted by Law, causing officers of the Nigeria Police stationed at Aba and maintained at Public expense for the Public benefit to devote their time and services to the investigation of a false allegation, thereby causing inconvenience or damage to the public by temporarily depriving the public of the services of these public officers and rendering liege subjects of the King liable to suspicion, accusation and arrest, and in so doing did unlawfully effect a Common Nuisance."
In answer to the charge the accused said "I gave this information to the police-it was false."
Thereupon, having heard the prosecuting Police officer, the learned Judge, before whom the trial was pending, not being satisfied that the particulars of offence disclosed any offence in law, postponed judgment, remanded the accused on bail and stated a case for the consideration of this Court on the question of law therein reserved.
It appears from the case stated that in the same Division of the : High Court another Judge, relying on the decision in Rex v. Elizabeth Ag. C.]., Manty (1933) I.K.B. 529, on facts similar to those in this case,. convicted persons charged under the same section.
The question for this Court is whether or not in law the trial Judge was correct in his opinion that the particulars of offence as alleged and, in so far as the act of the accused was concerned, admitted, disclosed no offence in law.
Section 234 en of the Criminal Code reads as follows :-
" Any person who does any act not warranted by law, or omits to discharge any legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common t