REG.

V.

BOULTON.

False

pretences-Railway ticket.

said Charles Turner was then and there a genuine ticket of the
said company, before then obtained by him the said John Boulton
from the said company, for the conveyance of him the said John
Boulton as a passenger, in and by certain carriages of the said
company, from the said town of Bradford to Huddersfield afore-
said, on the said 11th day of April, by means of which last-
mentioned false pretences, the said John Boulton did then and
there unlawfully obtain from the said Lancashire and Yorkshire
Railway Company, a certain chattel, to wit, a printed ticket of the
said company, authorizing the bearer thereof to be thereafter
conveyed without further charge or payment in that behalf, by
certain carriages of the said company, on the said 11th day of
April, from the said town of Bradford to Huddersfield aforesaid,
the said last-mentioned ticket being then and there the goods and
chattels of the said Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company,
and of the value of, &c., with intent thereby then and there
to cheat and defraud the said Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway
Company of the same. Whereas, in truth and in fact, the said
ticket so delivered as last aforesaid, by the said John Boulton,
was not a genuine ticket of or obtained from the said company
for the conveyance of any person as a passenger by any car-
riage of the said company, or any journey whatsoever, to the
great damage and deception of the said company, to the evil
example of all others in the like case offending, and against
the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and Case.
against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.
The ticket of the company is in the annexed form :-

And is a voucher for the journey without further payment, but is to be given up to the company at the journey's end.

The prisoner was stopped upon the line before he finished his journey, and was taken into custody with the ticket in his pos

session.

The question upon which I desire the opinion of the judges, is whether the obtaining such a ticket was obtaining a chattel of the company with intent to defraud the company of the same, within the meaning of the act of Parliament.

The case was not argued by counsel, but was considered by the following learned judges :-Pollock, C.B.; Patteson, J.; Wightman, J.; Platt, B.; and Talfourd, J.

POLLOCK, C.B., delivered the judgment of the court.-This was a conviction for obtaining a railway ticket by means of false pretences; and we think that it is within the statute which makes it penal to obtain "a chattel" by false pretences. The ticket which entitled the bearer to travel without further payment was something of value, and the obtaining of it by false pretences from a servant of the company was, in our opinion, an obtaining of a valuable chattel with intent to defraud the company. Although at the end of the journey it was to be returned according to the ordinary mode of managing the affairs of the company, that does not prevent it, whilst it is out and confers the privilege of travelling gratis, from being an article of value, obtained by the false pretences generally alleged in the indictment, and particularly proved at the trial. Conviction affirmed.

Indictment.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

JUNE SESSION.

June 11, 1849.

(Before the RECORDER.)

REG. v. WOLF, PRIDMORE, and OTLEY. (a)

Indictment for keeping a disorderly house, under 25 Geo. 2, c. 36.

A room within twenty miles of the cities of London and Westminster, used for the purpose of music and dancing, and to which the public are admitted on payment of money, is a disorderly house within the 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, s. 2, unless it has been duly licensed, although no improper or disorderly conduct is allowed in the said room.

The onus lies upon the defendant of proving that he has a licence.

One

of the defendants had his name over the house as a free vintner, and another had contracted to supply the visitors with refreshments, but neither took any acting part in the management, although they were sometimes seen in the room.

Held, that they were not shown to be persons having the management within
the 8th section.

THE
HE indictment charged the defendants that they, "on the 10th
day of January, in the year of our Lord 1848, and on divers
other days and times between that day and the day of taking this
inquisition, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the
county aforesaid, and within twenty miles of the cities of London
and Westminster, unlawfully did maintain and keep a certain room
and place for public music and dancing, situate in the parish of St.

(a) Reported by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

house

Evidence.

Anne, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex aforesaid, and REG. v. WOLF within twenty miles of the cities of London and Westminster, AND OTHERS. without a licence had for that purpose from the last preceding Disorderly Michaelmas Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county aforesaid, signified under the hands and seals of four or more of the justices there assembled at such sessions, according to the directions of the statute in such case made and provided, to the great damage and common nuisance of all the liege subjects of our Lady the Queen, against the form of the statute in such case made, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen," &c.

The room in question was called "The Walhalla," in Leicestersquare, and it was proved that nightly entertainments were there given, when music and dancing were carried on-the public being admitted on paying money at the door. There were often from Evidence. 200 to 300 visitors, who conducted themselves in an orderly and respectable manner, and no impropriety of conduct was permitted or practised in the room. Wolf supplied refreshments; Pridmore had a private room in the house, and had his name on a brass plate over a bell in the outer door-post. He had once been before a magistrate to make some charge against one of the waiters, and had then said he was the proprietor of the Walhalla. Before the room was opened as a dancing room he had given orders to a house decorator to fit it up, and had paid the latter his bill. Otley had his name up over the outer door, with the words "Free Vintner" attached to it. All the defendants had been seen in the room at different times, but no act of theirs was shown to connect them with the management of the room.

Parry (for the defendants), submitted that upon this evidence Parry, for they must be acquitted.-First, there was no proof that the defen- defendants. dants kept the house. Secondly, it was not proved to be unlicensed; neither was it shown to be disorderly. [THE RECOrder. -Surely if the prosecutor shows that this is a house that ought to be licensed, it is for the defendants to show that it is so. Then must it be disorderly in fact or disorderly by construction of law. The preamble of the 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, speaks of such assemblies leading to robbery.] The preamble stated that "whereas the multitute of places of entertainment for the lower sort of people is another great cause of thefts and robberies," &c. This clearly showed to what object the statute was applied. It was meant to repress the nightly assemblage of persons among the lower orders under circumstances in which crime was likely to be concocted. It was admitted here that the house was quietly and properly conducted, and no imputation, therefore, was cast upon the management. A licence was not necessary to enable the proprietors of the London Tavern to have a concert at their house. A ball might be given at Guildhall without one, and see Bellis v. Burghall (2 Esp. 722), why should a licence be necessary here? But supposing it ought to be licensed, there was not sufficient evidence that the defendants had anything to do with the management to make them responsible. Management and control must be distinctly proved; it surely could

REG. v. WOLF not be inferred from a contract to supply the room with refreshAND OTHERS. ments, which was quite consistent with the fact of the contractor Disorderly knowing nothing of the purpose which his employer had in view.

houseEvidence.

Such a contract might be made by a person a hundred miles away, and his having been seen at the house was no answer to such a suggestion; still less did it fix upon him any share in the management. Another defendant was proved to have had his name and his calling over the door, but there were other rooms in the house to which these might have reference. The third defendant was shown to have given orders for decorating the rooms, but this was before their use as dancing rooms, and might have been done with quite a different object.

Clarkson and Ballantine (for the prosecution.)-The only question was this: Was the room kept for public music and dancing? If so, it was clear the statute applied. Bellis v. Burghall was not a case of public, but of private, dancing at a dancing master's. Marks v. Benjamin (5 M. & W. 565), showed that taking money for admission, and admitting any person who was willing to pay money, made a room public within the act. It was not necessary that any conduct, disorderly in the strict sense of that word, should be shown. There was a statement in the act of what should be considered a disorderly house, and an unlicensed house for public music was there named. Then, a prima facie case being made out, it was for the defendants to rebut it, if they could, by showing those facts which were peculiarly within their own knowledge, and which the prosecution could not be expected to negative. If the house was licensed, it could easily be proved. If the name and calling of one of the defendants had no reference to this particular room, why not show what other room it referred to? It was not necessary that actual management should be proved. If these persons were leagued together for the purpose of carrying on this business, they would all be principals in contemplation of law, although they did not actively interfere in the control of the establishment.

Parry replied.

THE RECORDER.-The first question is, does the house require a licence? The act seems directed against a lower class of people, and was no doubt originally intended to put down houses and rooms really disorderly, but kept under pretence of their being used for music and dancing, and this supposition is strengthened by the very extraordinary provision that is contained in it, that every person found there may be apprehended and dealt with as a disorderly person. But the act is so framed as to compel me to put upon it a strict and literal construction. Many of the circumstances that probably conduced to the passing of it have passed away, but while the statute exists it must be enforced. Being, then, a house used for public music and dancing, I think a licence was requisite; and not having one, however well and quietly conducted, it is a disorderly house within the statute. As to the liability of the defendants, it is entirely a question for the jury. I think, however, there is not sufficient evidence to convict either

Wolf or Otley. As to Pridmore, the mere order to decorate the REG. v. WOLF room might fall short of sufficient proof, but he admits proprietor- AND OTHERS. ship, and the jury must decide whether, on the whole, he is iden

tified with the management.

Pridmore, Guilty.

Wolf and Otley, Not Guilty.

Clarkson and Ballantine, for the prosecution.

Parry, for the defence.

Disorderly houseEvidence.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

MAY SESSION.

May 12, 1849.

REG. v. BAKER. (a)

Sacrilege-Burglary in church-Stealing fixtures-7 & 8 Geo. 4,
c. 29, ss. 10 and 44.

Burglary may be committed in a church at common law.

To warrant a conviction for breaking and entering a church under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 10, there must be a stealing therein of some chattel. Stealing a fixture will not be sufficient.

But if the stealing of fixtures is averred in such count, the prisoner may be convicted simply thereof under the 44th section of that statute.

THE

HE prisoner was indicted for burglariously breaking and entering a church, with intent to steal, and stealing therein certain chattels, and for breaking and entering, &c., and stealing certain fixtures contra formam statuti. The breaking was suf ficiently proved, as was also the wrenching off of gas burners, money boxes, and other things affixed to the building, but no mere chattel was removed.

Payne, for the prisoner, submitted that a church was not a building in which burglary could be committed. There were acts of Parliament which particularly related to offences respecting churches, and these overrode the common law, which, without them might have been applicable.

ALDERSON, B. But they do not destroy the offence at common law.

Payne contended that the description of the offence, at all events, was the same. A church was the dwelling-house of the Almighty, but could not be looked on as a dwelling-house in the ordinary or statutable sense.

ALDERSON, B.-I take it to be a settled law that burglary may be committed in a church at common law. I so held lately, on circuit. (a) Reported by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.