Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Right of prisoner to examine juror on the

BY FINDING. voire dire, 509, 517 Right of prisoner to have the jury panel read

Where lost property is found, the appropriation

of it by the finder is not larceny, unless he over, 517

knew, or had reasonable means of ascertainChallenge of, 517

ing, the owner.

Quære, whether, in the case of a bank JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.

note, the finder can be indicted for felony on

the proof that, though he did not know the Jurisdiction of, 53

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 LARCENY.

lost, or which he reasonably supposes to have

been lost, and takes possession of them, inIn an indictment for stealing five pints of por tending to appropriate them entirely to his

ter, it appeared that the prisoner was dis own use, and there are no circumstances to covered standing by a barrel of porter, out rebut the presumption that he believed the of a hole in which the porter was running owner could not be found, he is not guilty into a can on the ground, and that about of larceny, even though he disposes of them five pints had run into the can.

after he has notice of the title of the real Held, that there was a sufficient asportavit owner, for the original taking is lawful, and proved of the porter in the can. Reg. v. the subsequent conversion is not a trespass. Wallis, 67

If, on the other hand, there is a reasonable

evidence of his belief, at the time of taking EVIDENCE-BAILMENT.

them, that the owner could be found, then

the original taking is felonious. Reg. v. A. the bailee of B.'s mare, took her to a cer Wood, 453

tain 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

RECEIVING-HUSBAND AND WIFE. keep of the mare, and told B. that she was Where a wife was indicted with her husband at the livery-stables. B. sent word to the for receiving stolen property, and the evistable-keeper not to let A. have the mare dence was, that, although not present when again ; and on A. asking to be allowed to her husband received the property, she had ride the mare to a certain place, twice told subsequently dealt with it, and ultimately him never to put finger near her more, to

destroyed it. which A, said, “ Well.” After B. had left Held, that it was a question for the jury the town, A. obtained the mare from the whether, in receiving it and taking an active ostler at the livery-stables by a false story, || part in dealing with it afterwards, she did so and never returned her.

with the purpose of aiding her husband in Held, that there was evidence to go to the the object he had in view of turning it to jury that a change of possession of the mare profit; or whether what she did was merely had taken place after she had been left at for the purpose of concealing her husband's the stables, and that the stable-keeper had guilt, or screening him from the consequences. become B.'s agent. Reg. v. Steer, 187

In the first place she might be found guilty ;
in the second she ought to be acquitted.

Reg. v. M'Clarens and others, 425
EVIDENCE OF.
In a portmanteau not proved to belong to a

INDICTMENT.
prisoner on trial was found a paper folded
like a letter, and containing in the inside

An indictment containing counts for stealing

as well as receiving, under sect. 3 of 11 & 12 what purported to be an inventory of goods pawned at different times. The inventory

Vict. c. 46, may have as many counts for was not in the prisoner's handwriting ; but

receiving as for stealing; and the prosecutor

is not bound to elect upon which of the on the outside of the paper the prisoner's name, and the word “private,” both in his

counts for receiving he will rely. Reg. v. handwriting, were indorsed.

Beeton, 451 Held, that the contents of the paper were An indictment charged a larceny of “two pieces not admissible in evidence against him. of the current silver coin of the realm called Reg. v. Hare and another, 547

| shillings, of the goods and chattels of A. B."

Held, that, though “ goods and chattels "I The prisoner being a watchmaker received was an incorrect description of money, those a watch from the prosecutor to be repaired, words might be rejected as surplusage, and not then intending to steal it. But in a few that then there was a sufficient allegation that days he went away, taking the watch with the money belonged to A. B. Reg. v. him; and when taken into custody he said, Radley, 460

“I have disposed of the property and it is impossible to get it back :"

Held, that there was no evidence of a PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSARY.

larceny. Reg. v. Thristle, 573 If A. unlocks a door of a roon of which he has the key, in order to allow B. to commit a

A. employed B., a drover by trade, to take larceny in it, and A, then goes away, and B.,

pigs to C., and to bring back such sunn as in his absence, enters the room, and removes

C. should give him, on being shown a paper articles out of it, A. is not a principal in the

given to B. for that purpose. B. had no larceny. Reg. v. Jeffries and another, 85

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; BY SERVANT.

and the persons who spoke to B. from the A servant entrusted with the care of his mas window of the house gave him no instruc

ter's property, and who subsequently appro tions. B. then sold the pigs to another perpriates it to his own use, is guilty of larceny son and absconded with the price. He had at the time he so disposes of it, and not at received 21. from A. for expenses, for which any previous time he may have intended to he was to account; and by custom he steal it, the principle of animus furandi not was entitled to receive a sum per day for the applying to the relation of master and ser- time occupied, and also to drive cattle for vant. Reg. v. Roberts and another, 74

any other person at the same time.

Held (dissentiente Lord Denman, C. J.), A person employed in a tannery got clandestine that these facts did not prove B. to be a access to a warehouse, which was part of the

mere servant of A. ; and that, therefore, he tannery, and in which dressed skins were

had been improperly convicted upon an inkept, and took from it certain skins dressed

dictment which charged a larceny of the by other workmen. They were afterwards

pigs. If he was a bailee, he could not be seen and recognized at the porch or place in

guilty of larceny, unless he intended, at the which he worked, and he was indicted for time of the receipt of it, to appropriate the the larceny of them. The jury found that

property to his own use; and there was no he had not intended to remove the skins

evidence of any such intention. from the tannery and dispose of them else

The case of Barnard v. Macnamee (1 Moo. where, but that his intention in taking them

C. C. 368), questioned. Reg. v. Hey, 582. was, to deliver them to the foreman and to get paid for them as if they were his own Special verdict in, 181 work, and that in this way he intended the By stealing and secreting letters, 271 skins to be restored to the possession of his master.

Indictment for, 447 Held, that he was not guilty of larceny. For stealing a ham, 572 Reg. v. Holloway, 241

Act for amendment of law of, App. lv. The servant of a tallow chandler removed fat belonging to his master from the room in

LETTERS. 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

LIBEL. his own use. Held to be a larceny in the servant. Reg.

nt. Ben Form of indictment for, with a plea of justifiv. Hull, 245

cation under Lord Campbell's Act, App.

Xxxviii. 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 transaction larceny.

MALICIOUS INJURIES. Wherever death ensucs from injuries inflicted
DAMAGING A WARP.

by parties engaged in any illegal act, an in-

dictment for manslaughter will lie, even
A warp not sized, but on its way to the sizers though it appear that the deceased had ma-

to be sized, to fit it for being used in manu terially contributed to his death by his own
facturing goods is not a warp, “in any negligence. Reg. v. Longbottom and another,
stage, process, or progress of manufacture,” 439.
or “ prepared for, or employed in, carding,

MARRIAGE LICENCE.
spinning," &c., within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4,
c. 30, s. 3, though the indictment is not bad Indictment for perjury and personation in
for not averring it to be so. Reg. v. Mary order to procure, 467.
Clegg, 295.

MARRIAGE REGISTER.
MALICIOUSLY SHOOTING, 58

False STATEMENTS IN.

On an indictment under the 41st section of
MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING.

the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86, the indictment

alleged that a certain clergyman had duly
What is, 441, 412

solemnized a marriage between the defen-

dant and another person, and that he was
MANSLAUGHTER.

about to register in duplicate, in certain mar-
In an indictment for manslaughter by neglect

riage register books, furnished to him fur
to give a proper signal to denote the obstruc-

that purpose by the Registrar-General,
tion of a line of railway, whereby a collision

several particulars required to be known, re-
took place and a passenger was killed,

lating to such marriage, and that the defeu-
1st: It was charged that the prisoner's

dant wilfully made to the said clergymnan for
duty was to attend to the proper working of

the purpose of being inserted in the sail
the signals, according to the rules.

marriage register books, certain false state-
Held, that it was not necessary to set out

ments, touching the particulars relating to
the rules.

the said marriage. The evidence showed
2nd : It appeared that the prisoner had

that the entry had been made before the
many other duties, besides attending to the

marriage, by the parish clerk, who put the
signal posts, some of them being incompa-

questions to the defendant, and wrote down
tible with his duty there.

the answers in the absence of the clergyman,
Held, that it was not necessary to set forth

but that after the marriage ceremony was
all the other duties and then to negative that

performed, the clergyman read over the
the prisoner was employed at the time in the

whole entry to the defendant, and asked him
discharge of either of such other duties.

if it was correct, to which he answered in the
3rd: Held, that an averment that it was

affirmative.
prisoner's duty to signal an obstruction,

Held, that the evidence was sufficient to
and that there was an obstruction which pri-

support the indictment.
soner neglected to signal, was a sufficient

Held, also, not necessary to prove that
description of the offence, and that it was not

the marriage register books had been fur-
necessary to aver that the prisoner's duty

nished to the clergyman by the Registrar-
was, if there was an obstruction, and he saw

General. Reg. v. Brown, 127
it, to signal it, and that there was an obstruc-
tion which he might have seen but neglected.

MATERIAL FACT.
to see.

What is, in perjury, 36
4th: That it is sufficient to aver the duty
to be to make “a proper signal," without

MERCHANT SEAMAN'S ACT.
further describing it.

5th : That a count which charged both a Indictment for mutiny under, 423
neglect to give the right signal, and the
giving of toe wrong signal, is not bad for

MERGER.
duplicity.
Oth: That it is sufficient to charge “ that

harges that Misdemeanor not merged in felony, 229
the prisoner did neglect and omit to alter
the said signal,” without stating more parti-

MISDEMEANOR.
cularly what was the specific alteration which Upon an indictment for misdemeanor it is no
he so neglected to make. Reg. v. Pargeter, ground for an acquittal, that the evidence
191

necessary to prove the misdemeanor also
VOL. III.

shows that it is part of a felony, and that I

MURDER.
the felony has been completed. Thus upon

INDICTMENT.
an indictment for a conspiracy to commit
larceny, and charging that in pursuance of in

suance of In an indictment for murder, the 1st count
that conspiracy the larceny had been commit- ' alleged, that the prisoner, “in and upon a
ted, the defendant is not entitled to an acquit-

certain infant female child, born of the body
tal, though the evidence proves that he was

of her the said Sarah Waters, of tender age,
guilty of felony, the conspiracy proved mak-

to wit, of about the age of two days, did
ing him an accessory before the fact of the

make an assault," &c., and went on to state
crime of larceny. Reg. v. Button and

a murder by poisoning.
others, 292

The 2nd count charged an assault, "in

and upon the said infant female child, so
ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD.

born of the body of her the said Sarah
An indictment which merely charges that the

Waters," &c., and then set forth the cause
defendant did unlawfully attempt and en-

of death to have been the exposing the child
deavour fraudulently, falsely, and unlawfully

on a heap of ashes, leaving it there exposed to
to obtain from A B. a large sum of money

the inclemency of the weather. But there
with intent to cheat and defraud him, is bad

was no allegation in this count of the child's
in arrest of judgment. Reg. v. Marsh and

age, or that it was of tender years, so that
another, 570

the natural consequence of the exposure

would be its death.
INDICTMENT FOR DISOBEYING ORDER OF

Held, nevertheless, that the 2nd count
JUSTICES.

was good after verdict.

Held, also, that describing the child in
If two justices have made an order upon the

the indictment as "not named," was not
putative father of a bastard child under

matter of objection. Reg. v. Waters, 300
7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, which is invalid upon the
face of it, it is competent to the same two
justices, or to two other justices, having ju-

PRACTICE.
risdiction in the case in other respects, to An application was made before trial on the
make upon the mother's application a second part of the accused, that a surgeon named
order upon the same person, as if there by them should be permitted to inspect the
had been no previous application. Reg. v. stomach of the deceased person, which was
Brisby, 476

then in the possession of a police officer. The

application was granted, and an order made
VERDICT IN.

that the inspection should take place in the
“ Misdemeanor " is nomen collectivum ; and presence of the police officer, and of the

therefore where an indictment contained medical persons who had examined it on the
several counts, and the venue was to try part of the prosecution, the expense to be
“ whether the said R. be guilty of the per borne by the prisoners, and the coroner to
jury and misdemeanor aforesaid or not have notice of the time and place of the
guilty ;" and the verdict was " guilty of the examination. Form of order. Reg. v. Spry
perjury and misdemeanor aforesaid, in man and another, 221
ner and form as by the said indictment is
supposed against him :"

Statement of name of murdered party in in-
Held, that they applied to all the counts, dictment, 72
and that a general judgment of imprisonment | Defence of insanity, principles of, 275

was good. Ryalls v. The Queen, 254
Nomen collectivum, 36

MUTINY.
Embezzlement by agents, 64
Notice of trial in, practice as to, 299

MERCHANT SEAMAN'S Act.
To what sessions traverse should be, 431 A seaman engaged by the master of a vessel,
Practice in, as to entering an award of a new and taken to sea without any such written
trial, 561

agreement having been entered into between

them as is rendered necessary by the 7 & 8
MISNOMER.

Vict. c. 112, s. 2, is not a seaman or a ma-
Of juryman not a mistrial, 220

riner within the 11 & 12 Will. 3, c. 7, s. 9,
and therefore is not liable under that section

for making a revolt, by deserting his vessel
MISTRIAL.

in port, and inducing the rest of the crew to
Misnomer of juryman is not, 220

do the same.

Semble, a merchant vessel is a ship within the event of their being interrupted by
the meaning of that section. Reg. v. Smith keepers while in pursuit of gaine. Reg. v.
and another, 413

Turner and others, 304

Evidence of, 50
NAME.

NOLLE PROSEQUI, 93
Insertion of, in an indictment for murder, 72

NOTICE OF TRIAL.

In misdemeanor, practice as to, 299
NAVAL STORES.

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF.
The bare possession of marked naval stores

OVERT ACT.
does not render a person liable to be con-
victed under 9 & 10 Will. 3, C, 41, if he be

be In high treason, what is, 76
ignorant that the stores are so marked

A defendant, charged with the possession
of two lots of marked naval stores, produced

PAWNBROKERS' ACT.
at his trial two certificates in respect of the
different lots, signed respectively by the

Indictments for false declaration, under, 437
Commodore Superintendent of the Woolwich

PERJURY.
Dockyard and the Secretary to the Board of
Ordnance: the former having been granted

INDICTMENTS-SEVERAL COUNTS.
to the person of whom the defendant pur- In an indictment for perjury alleged to have
chased, the latter to the defendant himself. been committed in an affidavit sworn, be-

Held, that these certificates, though not fore showing cause, in answer to an applica-
strictly in accordance with 9 & 10 Will. 3, tion by an attorney for taxation of his bill
c. 41, ss. 2, 4, were, nevertheless, an answer after the expiration of one “month" from its
to the charge. Reg. v. Wilmet, 281

delivery, it is not necessary to negative any

application by the party chargeable before
NEW TRIAL.

the expiration of the month, inasmuch as

the judge would have jurisdiction to issue
In misdemeanor, practice as to entering an

the summons and commence the inquiry
award for, 561

whether any such application had been made

or not.
NIGHT POACHING.

The indictment used the word “month :"
An indictment under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 69, Held, that, as the stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73,

charged, that the prisoners “ were in the was expressly referred to in the indictment,
Great Ground on the 11th February, armed the same construction must be given to that
with intent, then and there to take game.” word in the indictment as in the statute ;
The evidence showed that the prisoners were and that therefore it must be held to mean
all seen for the first time, in the Great " calendar month."
Ground, employed in taking down two nets;

A count of an indictment for perjury con-
after this was done they picked up some dead | cluding thus, “And so the jurors, &c., did
hares, which were lying on the ground near say that the said J. N. R., &c., did commit
the nets, and hanging them on long sticks wilful and corrupt perjury," is not bad, be-
over their shoulders, walked homewards with cause the whole averment may be rejected as
them. It also appeared that they had dogs surplusage.
with them in the Great Ground.

The affidavit denied the retainer :
Held, that the questions for the jury were Held, that the retainer was a material fact
- First, whether they were in the Great to be ascertained, and that therefore perjury
Ground with the intent to take game at that might properly be assigned upon the state-
time, and that such intent might be inferred ment denying it.
from the presence of the nets and dogs, “Misdemeanor" is nomen collectirum; and
though they might have taken the hares therefore where the venire was to try “whe-
elsewhere.

ther the said J. N. R. be guilty of the per-
Held also, that the allegation that they jury and misdemeanor aforesaid or not
were “armed" could not be sustained, unless guilty ;" and the verdict was " guilty of the
the jury should be of opinion that they took perjuryand misdemeanor aforesaid, in manner
the sticks for the double purpose of carrying and form as by the said indictment is sup-

and form as by the said ind
away the game, and of attack or defence in posed against him :"

« ForrigeFortsett »