and when and where the presentment was made and that the names of the grand jurors having been set forth in the caption it sufficiently appeared thereby that the bill was found by twelve grand jurors, though the number was not stated. Held, also, that the caption was not vitiated by the omission of the words sworn and charged. John Martin v. The Queen, 318. In setting forth the indictment, the past tense was used: "it was presented," instead of "it is presented." Held immaterial. King v. the Queen, 561. An indictment charged the prisoner with stealing one ham." 66 Held, that it sufficiently described an article which was the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Gallears, 572 For perjury, 36, 205, 254, 561 damage, or was likely to do so. Reg. v. Cooper, 559 INFORMATION. For seditious libel, 93 INSANITY. A mere uncontrollable impulse of the mind, co-existing with the full possession of the reasoning powers, will not warrant an acquittal on the ground of insanity. The question for the jury being, whether the prisoner, at the time he committed the act, knew the character and nature of the act, and that it was a wrongful one. Reg. v. Barton, 275 INTERPRETER. Jury may be charged with more than one at Practice as to, 75 the same time, 79 Assignment of perjury in, 86 For seditious libel, 93 For sedition, 183, 291 Under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86, s. 41, for falsely For indecent exposure, 248 For night poaching, 304 For illegal training, 306 Under Crown and Government Security Act, 318 For high treason, 360 Description of money in, 460 For obtaining a marriage licence by perjury INFANT. Exposure and desertion of An indictment for leaving and deserting an infant child in a certain parish, with intent to injure and aggrieve the inhabitants of the said parish, is not sufficient, there being no allegation that the child was settled elsewhere, nor that the child received any JUDGMENT. General, when good, 36 Of respondeat ouster, notwithstanding prayer of final judgment, 93 In one count not vitiated by discharge of jury from finding on others, 141 Form of, for receiving gifts as officer of the East Company, under 33 George 3, c. 52, s. 62; 163 Practice as to, in a conviction for perjury, 205 Reversal of, 252 Of transportation, entering, 318 JURISDICTION. SPECIAL LOCAL COMMISSION. An offence was committed within a separate locality, which had a body of justices exercising jurisdiction within the liberty, by virtue of three separate commissions; 1st, the ordinary commission of the peace; 2nd, a commission to try all treasons, misprisions of treasons, insurrections, murders, felonies, manslaughters, &c.; the 3rd, a general commission of gaol delivery. Neither of the commissions contained any non-intromittant clause, but the general county magistrates, in fact, exercised no jurisdiction within the liberty, which had a gaol and separate custos rotulorum and clerk of the peace. Held, that these commissions did not oust the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Justices of Gaol Delivery for the whole county; and that the prisoner having been removed from the liberty by writs of habeas ad deliberandum, and recipias corpus, was properly tried by such justices. Reg. v. Crane, 53. Of judges, 254 Of judge of assize, as to discharge of prisoners, 431 JURY. The array was challenged on the grounds, inter alia, that the panel was arrayed partially, and to the prejudice of the prisoner; and that, for the purpose of depriving him of a fair trial, the names of jurors usually summoned, and of other jurors, had been omitted from the panel, because they were deemed more likely to acquit than to convict; and the names of other jurors were inserted therein, because they were deemed more likely to convict than to acquit. Held, that the mere fact of the existence of a great disproportion between the relative number of persons of different religious persuasions upon the panel was, per se, no evidence in support of such a challenge. By the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 91, it is the duty of the recorder, at a special sessions in each year, to revise in open court, the general list of jurors returned, pursuant to the statute, and to deliver it when so revised and signed by him, to the clerk of the peace, who gives a copy thereof to the sheriff, as the jurors' book for the ensuing year, and from which the sheriff is bound to form the jury panel. The court held that a list of the jurors' names, checked off by the witness as they were in open court placed on the revised list by the recorder, but which was not compared with the revised list after it was signed by the recorder, or with the jurors' book, was not admissible as evidence of the contents of the jurors' book : And refused to direct the book itself to be produced for the purpose of ascertaining the different religions of the jurors named therein, and comparing their relative number with the proportion in which jurors of the same persuasion appeared on the panel. Held, that a juror whose name, though he was summoned to attend the court, was left off the panel, could not be asked what his religion was. The triers are entitled to know whether, in the opinion of the court, there is any evidence to sustain such challenge. The Queen v. J. Mitchell. A challenge was tendered to one of the jurors, writ of error that it was rightly Quære, whether in such challenge the absence of an averment that the franchise has been lost or forfeited by non user, is not a fatal omission? John Martin v. the Queen, 318 If a juryman, on calling over the names of the Charging, practice as to, 79 A challenge of a juror may be allowed after he Discharge of, where they cannot agree, 489 has been sworn. Reg. v. Flint, 66 Right of prisoner to copy panel, 509 A. the bailee of B.'s mare, took her to a certain livery stable in the town of P. where B. was, paid to B. the balance of money due to him after deducting one pound due for the keep of the mare, and told B. that she was at the livery-stables. B. sent word to the stable-keeper not to let A. have the mare again; and on A. asking to be allowed to ride the mare to a certain place, twice told him never to put finger near her more, to which A. said, "Well." After B. had left the town, A. obtained the mare from the ostler at the livery-stables by a false story, and never returned her. Held, that there was evidence to go to the jury that a change of possession of the mare had taken place after she had been left at the stables, and that the stable-keeper had become B.'s agent. Reg. v. Steer, 187 EVIDENCE OF. In a portmanteau not proved to belong to a prisoner on trial was found a paper folded like a letter, and containing in the inside what purported to be an inventory of goods pawned at different times. The inventory was not in the prisoner's handwriting; but on the outside of the paper the prisoner's name, and the word "private," both in his handwriting, were indorsed. Held, that the contents of the paper were not admissible in evidence against him. Reg. v. Hare and another, 547 BY FINDING. Where lost property is found, the appropriation of it by the finder is not larceny, unless he knew, or had reasonable means of ascertaining, the owner. Quære, whether, in the case of a bank note, the finder can be indicted for felony on the proof that, though he did not know the owner when he found the note, he did know him before he put it off? Reg. v. Wood, 277 If a man finds goods which have been actually lost, or which he reasonably supposes to have been lost, and takes possession of them, intending to appropriate them entirely to his own use, and there are no circumstances to rebut the presumption that he believed the owner could not be found, he is not guilty of larceny, even though he disposes of them after he has notice of the title of the real owner, for the original taking is lawful, and the subsequent conversion is not a trespass. If, on the other hand, there is a reasonable evidence of his belief, at the time of taking them, that the owner could be found, then the original taking is felonious. Reg. v. Wood, 453 RECEIVING-HUSBAND AND WIFE. Where a wife was indicted with her husband for receiving stolen property, and the evidence was, that, although not present when her husband received the property, she had subsequently dealt with it, and ultimately destroyed it. Held, that it was a question for the jury whether, in receiving it and taking an active part in dealing with it afterwards, she did so with the purpose of aiding her husband in the object he had in view of turning it to profit; or whether what she did was merely for the purpose of concealing her husband's guilt, or screening him from the consequences. In the first place she might be found guilty; in the second she ought to be acquitted. Reg. v. M'Clarens and others, 425 INDICTMENT. An indictment containing counts for stealing as well as receiving, under sect. 3 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 46, may have as many counts for receiving as for stealing; and the prosecutor is not bound to elect upon which of the counts for receiving he will rely. Reg. v. Beeton, 451. An indictment charged a larceny of "two pieces of the current silver coin of the realm called shillings, of the goods and chattels of A. B." Held, that, though "goods and chattels " was an incorrect description of money, those words might be rejected as surplusage, and that then there was a sufficient allegation that the money belonged to A. B. Reg. v. Radley, 460 PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSARY. If A. unlocks a door of a room of which he has the key, in order to allow B. to commit a larceny in it, and A. then goes away, and B., in his absence, enters the room, and removes articles out of it, A. is not a principal in the larceny. Reg. v. Jeffries and another, 85 BY SERVANT. A servant entrusted with the care of his master's property, and who subsequently appropriates it to his own use, is guilty of larceny at the time he so disposes of it, and not at any previous time he may have intended to steal it, the principle of animus furandi not applying to the relation of master and servant. Reg. v. Roberts and another, 74 A person employed in a tannery got clandestine access to a warehouse, which was part of the tannery, and in which dressed skins were kept, and took from it certain skins dressed by other workmen. They were afterwards seen and recognized at the porch or place in which he worked, and he was indicted for the larceny of them. The jury found that he had not intended to remove the skins from the tannery and dispose of them elsewhere, but that his intention in taking them was, to deliver them to the foreman and to get paid for them as if they were his own work, and that in this way he intended the skins to be restored to the possession of his master. Held, that he was not guilty of larceny. Reg. v. Holloway, 241 The prisoner being a watchmaker received a watch from the prosecutor to be repaired, not then intending to steal it. But in a few days he went away, taking the watch with him; and when taken into custody he said, "I have disposed of the property and it is impossible to get it back:" Held, that there was no evidence of a larceny. Reg. v. Thristle, 573 A. employed B., a drover by trade, to take pigs to C., and to bring back such sum as C. should give him, on being shown a paper given to B. for that purpose. B. had no authority to do anything but deliver the pigs to C. B. took them to the house of C. at an hour in the morning when the inmates were in bed. C. himself was not at home; and the persons who spoke to B. from the window of the house gave him no instructions. B. then sold the pigs to another person and absconded with the price. He had received 21. from A. for expenses, for which he was to account; and by custom he was entitled to receive a sum per day for the time occupied, and also to drive cattle for any other person at the same time. Held (dissentiente Lord Denman, C. J.), that these facts did not prove B. to be a mere servant of A.; and that, therefore, he had been improperly convicted upon an indictment which charged a larceny of the pigs. If he was a bailee, he could not be guilty of larceny, unless he intended, at the time of the receipt of it, to appropriate the property to his own use; and there was no evidence of any such intention. The case of Barnard v. Macnamee (1 Moo. C. C. 368), questioned. Reg. v. Hey, 582. Special verdict in, 181 By stealing and secreting letters, 271 Act for amendment of law of, App. lv. LETTERS. The servant of a tallow chandler removed fat belonging to his master from the room in which it was kept, to a room where his master was accustomed to buy fat from per- Indictment for stealing and secreting, 271 sons who had it to sell, and placed it on a pair of scales there, with intent to sell it to his master, and appropriate the proceeds to his own use. Held to be a larceny in the servant. Reg. v. Hull, 245 If at the time of the taking of a chattel there is no animus furandi, a subsequent fraudulent appropriation of it will not make the entire *ransaction larceny. LIBEL. Form of indictment for, with a plea of justification under Lord Campbell's Act, App. xxxviii. MALICIOUS INJURIES. DAMAGING A WARP. A warp not sized, but on its way to the sizers MALICIOUSLY SHOOTING, 58 MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING. What is, 441, 442 MANSLAUGHTER. In an indictment for manslaughter by neglect 1st: It was charged that the prisoner's Held, that it was not necessary to set out 2nd: It appeared that the prisoner had Held, that it was not necessary to set forth 3rd: Held, that an averment that it was 4th: That it is sufficient to aver the duty 5th: That a count which charged both a Wherever death ensues from injuries inflicted MARRIAGE LICENCE. Indictment for perjury and personation in MARRIAGE REGISTER. On an indictment under the 41st section of Held, that the evidence was sufficient to Held, also, not necessary to prove that MATERIAL FACT. What is, in perjury, 36 MERCHANT SEAMAN'S ACT. Indictment for mutiny under, 423 MERGER. MISDEMEANOR. 6th: That it is sufficient to charge "that Misdemeanor not merged in felony, 229 191 VOL. III. Upon an indictment for misdemeanor it is no |