REG. v. WM. PROUD. Armstrong, and Francis Armstrong, his masters, from the said William Civil, John Armstrong, and Francis Armstrong, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of Embezzlement our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity." 1861. -Evidence. The prisoner for fifteen years had been a member of and secretary to a properly certified friendly society at Hexham, the rules of which, as far as they are material to the present case, were as follows: "Appointment of Treasurer and Trustees. "At the first meeting of this lodge after these rules are registered, there shall be elected by a majority of the members then present, three trustees and a treasurer, who shall continue in office during the pleasure of the lodge. "Board of Management. "That this lodge shall consist of an unlimited number of members. The business thereof shall be conducted by a board of management, consisting of the following, viz., Noble Grand, or N. G., Vice Grand, or V. G., Grand Master, or G. M., Secretary, Warden, right and left supporters to N. G. and V. G., guardian and treasurer; that five shall form a quorum, and the meetings shall be held every other Saturday, at eight in the evening, and continue open until ten, when it shall be closed for the evening; that every member of the lodge shall have an equal voice in all the property and concerns thereof; and when at any time or in any case the votes may be equal, the president at the time shall have the casting vote. "Duty of Treasurer. "The treasurer shall take charge of the funds of the lodge, and pay all demands when ordered to do so by the lodge, or by the N. G., V. G., and secretary for the time being. He shall balance his accounts at each auditing of the lodge books, or when required by the board of management, and supply the lodge officers with a duplicate thereof; he shall also give up all books, documents, moneys and property of the lodge in his possession when required so to do by a resolution of the lodge, and he shall, before taking upon himself the duties of his office, give security to the trustees, by himself and two bondsmen, pursuant to the Friendly Societies Act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 115, s. 11, the amount to be determined on at a summoned meeting of the members, and bound to be in the form set forth at the end of the Friendly Societies Act. "He shall attend all meetings of the lodge, take minutes of the proceedings thereof, and keep a correct account of the receipts and expenditure of the lodge, prepare all summonses in due time, attend the auditors to point out and explain anything they may require respecting the accounts when required by the officers, or a majority of the lodge. He shall prepare all documents for the district and board of directors, and make the annual and other returns to the registrar, as required by the Friendly Societies Act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 115, and for his services he shall receive from the incidental expense funds of the lodge such sum as may be agreed upon on his acceptance of office. The prisoner was appointed secretary by the society, and, as such, received a salary of 11. per annum. No treasurer had ever been appointed, and the prisoner for the whole fifteen years had always at the weekly meetings of the society received all moneys due from the members, giving receipts for the same, and punctually made all payments due from the society, placing the balance in the society's box with the books at the lodge room. prisoner always gave correct receipts to the members for their weekly payments, but made false entries in the contribution and cash-book kept by him as secretary. The In the course of last spring, suspicions having arisen, the prisoner was called upon to deliver up his books and the balance in hand; and it was then discovered, by comparing the receipts received by the members from the prisoner with the books kept by him, that he had not entered in the books a large number of subscriptions received by him in small sums of one, two, and three shillings at a time, amounting in the whole to more than 1007. The prisoner was called upon for an explanation, and at once admitted he had received the money, and was willing to repay the amount by instalments, and said that the law could not touch him. The counsel for the defence contended that it no doubt was a breach of trust, but that upon these facts the prisoner could not be convicted of embezzlement. In the course of the case the books of the society, kept by the prisoner, were tendered generally in evidence by the prosecution; and, on behalf of the prisoner, it was objected that the evidence must be confined to the three particular entries referring to the three charges in the indictment. The Court, however, overruled the objection, and left the case to the Jury, who found the prisoner guilty. The Court thereupon passed sentence, but respited execution of the judgment on such conviction until the objection was considered and decided, and took a recognizance of bail from the prisoner to render himself in execution, pursuant to the statute 11 & 12 Vict. c. 78. The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal is asked whether, on the above facts, the conviction can be sustained. (Signed) THOS. ANDERSON, Chairman of the said Court of Quarter Sessions. No counsel appeared on behalf either of the prosecution or the prisoner. REG. บ. WM. PROUD. 1861. Embezzlement By the Court, Conviction affirmed. Evidence Question asked as to what was said before the coroner. A witness may be asked by prisoner's counsel as to what he said before coroner, without putting in the depositions. ILLIAM MALONEY was indicted for the murder of Mary Maloney. He was also charged, upon the coroner's inquisition, with the like murder. Clerk and Orridge, for the prosecution. Sleigh, for the prisoner. Joseph Saunders, a witness for the prosecution, being crossexamined as to whether he had not said, before the coroner, that he "told the woman at the eating-house that a murder had been committed;" Clerk objected that what he said would appear by the depositions, and before such a question was answered they must be put in. Sleigh contended that such a course was not necessary in regard to depositions taken before a coroner. They differed from depositions taken before a magistrate. Depositions taken by a coroner are taken under the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 4, repealing the 1 & 2 Phil. & Mary, c. 13, and by the 9 Geo. 4, c. 54. Depositions taken before a magistrate are taken under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, and although the rule as to putting in depositions before a question be asked as to their contents applies to depositions taken under that statute, there is no such rule as to those taken under the statutes applying to coroners' depositions. BYLES, J.-Unless some authority is shown me to the contrary, I shall allow the question to be put. The rules laid down by the Judges apply to examinations before a magistrate; examinations before a coroner are not mentioned, and this seems to me strongly (a) Reported by ROBERT ORRIDGE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. in favour of Mr. Sleigh's argument. If it had been intended that the same rules should apply to depositions taken before a coroner, they would have been mentioned. As I said before, unless an authority be shown me against such a question being put, I shall (in favorem vitæ) allow it to be put. Guilty. REG. บ. MALONEY. 1861. Evidence. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. Tuesday, 26th November, 1861. (Before T. CHAMBERS, Esq., Q.C., Common Serjeant.) REG. v. MONTRION. (a) Practice-Previous conviction—Arraignment under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99. The prisoner was charged with uttering, Sc., having been before convicte of felony. The old act provided that the previous conviction should be proved first at the trial; the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, directs that the prisoner shall not be arraigned upon the previous conviction till the subsequent felony shall have been disposed of. The 3rd section of the Repealing Act, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 95, considered as to proceedings at trial of offences committed before 1st November, 1861. Held, by the Recorder and the Common Serjeant, that the 3rd section of the Repealing Act directs that the proceedings at the trial of offences committed before 1st November, 1861, shall be in accordance with the rules observed till that time. DAVID AVID MONTRION was indicted for feloniously uttering counterfeit coin on the 19th of October, he having been before convicted of felony. Craufurd and W. H. Cooke, for the prosecution. Ribton, for the prisoner. The prisoner having been arraigned upon the old system, which allowed the previous conviction to be charged with the subsequent offence, and the counsel for the prosecution being about to prove the case according to the practice before the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99 came into operation. Ribton objected, first, that the arraignment should have been as directed by section 37 of that Act; and secondly, until that were done, no evidence of the previous conviction should be received. Having reminded the Court of the practice under the old system, when a prisoner was indicted for a subsequent uttering (a) Reported by Robert Orridge, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. REG. V. MONTRION. 1861. Practice after a previous conviction, he called the attention of the Court to the words of sect. 37 of the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, which are as follows: "Where any person shall have been convicted of any offence against this Act, or any former Act relating to the coin, and shall afterwards be indicted for any offence against this Act, Arraignment. committed subsequent to such conviction" (here follow directions as to preparation of indictment, fecs, &c.), "the proceedings upon any indictment for committing any offence after a previous conviction or convictions shall be as follows; (that is to say), the offender shall in the first instance be arraigned upon so much only of the indictment as charges the subsequent offence, and if he plead not guilty, or if the Court order the plea of not guilty to be entered on his behalf, the Jury shall be charged, in the first instance, to inquire concerning such subsequent offence only; and if they find him guilty, or if on arraignment he plead guilty, he shall then, and not before, be asked whether he had been previously convicted, as alleged in the indictment," &c. provision was made to cure the great injustice which existed under the former Act, and although, before the 1st of November, the Acts of Parliament were in force as to the nature of the offence when the prisoner was brought to trial, the procedure at the trial was to follow the course laid down by the new Act. This W. H. Cooke.-If that be so, how is the 3rd section of the Repealing Act (24 & 25 Vict. c. 95) to be construed? The words of that section are, that "Every offence which shall have been wholly or partly committed against any of the said Acts or parts of Acts, before this Act comes into operation, shall be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined and punished, &c., in the same manner as if the said Acts and parts of Acts had not been repealed." The words here, "tried and determined," apply to such a proceeding as trial in Court, and mode of trial, and the section is expressly intended as a guide in the event of any such objection as this being made. Ribton, in reply.-The above section applies to the nature of the offences committed, and the jurisdiction of the Courts under the Act that is repealed. The words, "it shall be tried, &c.," are only to give authority to the Court sitting after the acts are repealed. The practice and forms at those courts is defined and governed solely by the new Acts. The COMMON SERJEANT.-It seems to me you are giving a very limited effect to the Repealing Act, but, as it is a matter of great importance, I will consult the Recorder. The Common Serjeant having left the Court for that purpose, returned, and said the Recorder agreed with him in thinking the proceedings at the trial should be as formerly, where the offence was committed before the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, &c., came into operation. NOTE. In a case tried before Mr. Justice Byles next day, in the same court, the same question arose in an ordinary case of felony, and his Lordship said, "I am of opinion that as far as the offence |