or Sentenced and Harbouring of Offenders

However, where such a crime has been committed, then, if there has been negligence on the part of the archivist, registrar, recording officer, notary or other functionary, he shall be liable to imprisonment from four to six months or to a fine (multa) for the mere negligence. (Section 142 (2)). Concerning this provision, we can repeat the observations we made in the similar provision of the law in regard to the crime of breaking of seals.

As in the case of the crime just mentioned, so in the case of this crime of embezzlement, destruction etc. of documents, it is provided by Section 143 that where the crime is committed with violence against the person, the punishment is increased to hard labour from two to six years.

Finally, the crime under discussion is completed by the embezzlement, destruction, mutilation or purloining of the document, etc. It is not necessary that the offender shall have achieved the aim he had in view, as, for instance, the deceit of the judicial authorities. Nor is it necessary, to prove that any private damage has been actually caused. Nor is the completion of the offence effected by the fact that the document, etc. purloined has been recovered. It is interesting to recall in connection with the last observation that Section 202 of the Italian Code made a wise provision: it provided a substantial reduction of punishment where the offender returned the act or document unaltered without having derived any profit therefrom and before the institution of proceedings.

3. Violation of Public Places of Confinement; the escape of persons in custody or Suspected or Sentenced and Harbouring of Offenders

Concerning these provisions of our Code (then Section II-of Chapter IV) Jameson wrote: The next Section provides against those offences which relate to the security of prisoners and the obstructions to public justice by those who harbour offenders or facilitate their escape. This is a necessary branch of the law which protects the due exercise of the different departments of the executive power. The provisions of the Chapter distinguish with sufficient precision and minuteness the153ifferrent varieties of these offences, and for the most part award appropriate punishments. These indeed lean to decide of lenity as they ought to do, considering how much these offences depend upon the state of administration of prisons and of the Police, and in the local