1806.

act, for any thing that appeared in that case, which

The KING might give reason to infer, that it never had the bene

versus

WATSON.

fit of the 43 Eliz. But here, it is found as a fact that the poor have always, up to the year 1739, been maintained by the whole parish."

It was ordered that the case should back to be re-stated.

go

(

Stat. 45 Eliz.

townships or parishes. Poor

rate.

The KING against WOODCOCK.-29th Jan.

c. 2, Separate On a conviction before a justice of the peace, it must appear expressly upon the statement of the evidence, that the offence was committed within the time limited for the conviction; and it cannot be supplied by intendment or by information. Therefore, where a conviction stated an information for an offence committed within 3 months last past, to wit, on the 22d of May last past, and the evidence was stated of a fact committed on the 22d day of May, without stating in what year, and without reference to the said 22d day of May, to ascertain the year; it was quashed.

The KING

versus

WOODCOCK.

IN a conviction before two justices for the county of Suffolk, the information stated that, before and at the time of the committing of the offence thereinafter mentioned, the defendant was a malster and maker of malt, to wit, at Halesworth, in the county of Suffolk, and so being there such malster and maker of malt, he the said defendant within three months now last past, (that is to say) on the 2nd day of May, now Jast past, at Halesworth aforesaid, in the said county of Suffolk, did wet, water, and sprinkle, and cause and suffer to be wetted, watered, and sprinkled, certain corn and grain of him the said defendant then and there making into malt in a certain state and stage of

1860

The KING

versus

WOODCOCK.

operation, &c. against the form of the statute, where-
by he forfeited 2001.; and prayed the judgment of
the justices, in the premises; and that the said defen-
dant might be summoned to answer the premises, &c.
It stated further, that thereupon, afterwards, (to wit),
on the 4th day of June, at Woodbridge, in the said
county of Suffolk, the said defendant having been pre-
viously duly summoned, appeared to make his defence
in his proper person, and having heard the said infor-
mation read pleaded, not guilty. The conviction then
stated the evidence as follows: "Whereupon we the
said justices, do now here, at the request of the said
informer, proceed to examine unto the truth of the
matters contained in the said information, and there-
upon, on the day and year last aforesaid, at Woodbridge
aforesaid, in the said county of Suffolk, William Ro-
binson, supervisor of excise, and John Rogers, officer
of excise, two credible witnesses, on the behalf of the
said informer, now here appear before us the said jus
tices, and being duly sworn by us the said justices,
depose and say in the premises as follows: and first
the said William Robinson, on his oath aforesaid, for
himself saith, that he is a supervisor of excise, and that
the said defendant at the time of the committing the
offence mentioned in the said information, was a malt-
ster at Halesworth, in this county, that he with John
Rogers, on the 22d day of May, went to the defendant's
malthouse at Halesworth aforesaid, where they found
a floor of malt then in operation." Here followed the
evidence which contained no further intimation of the
year, to which the above 92d of May referred. And the
said John Rogers on his oath aforesaid, for himself
saith, that he was with the last witness on the said
22d day of May at the defendant's malthouse, that
he saw the said floor of malt, and has no doubt but
it had been watered after taken from the cistern. And
the said defendant is now here again called upon by

1806.

us the said justices for his further defence in the preThe KING mises, but no other evidence is now here produced to

versus

WOODCOCK.

us the said justices."

ALDERSON objected that the conviction did not state, in the evidence, a fact committed within the time of three months next previous to which time the jurisdiction of the justices was limited.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, and FREERE was with him, contended, that, it being stated in the information, that the offence was committed on the o2d of May last past, and the evidence stating, that the fact was committed on the 22d day of May, it must be presumed to be the same 22d day of May, mentioned in the information, and that it must also be presumed that the evidence given applied to the time stated, and that in order to shew that the justices had not jurisdiction, the defendant ought to shew clearly from the conviction, that it was impossible that the evidence could apply.

Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, C. J. "It does not say 'on the same 22d day of May,' so as to refer to the information. Then your information is within 3 months last past, but, for any thing that appears, your evidence is not even within a year. Here is no specific allegation of the year at all, and no reference whereby to ascertain what year is meant, and non liquet upon this statement, but they had evidence of a fact committed on the 22d day of May 1805."

LE BLANC, J. "It does not appear on the face of the conviction, that the evidence supports the information; for the fact which is stated of an offence comnitted on the 22d of May, will support a conviction for any other year than the year 1805."

SPENCELY qui tam against DE WILLOT.-27th Jan.

1806.

On cross examination to try the credit of a witness, held that only Cross-examinageneral questions can be put, or such as relate to the issue in question. Credit of Witness. tion; and he must not be examined us to particular and distinct facts, collateral to the issue, in order, if he mis-state them, to contradict him by another witness.*

THIS

HIS was an action for usury on a contract of loan between the defendant, and one de Chambonas an emigrant French marquis. At the trial before Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. the Marquis de Chambonas was the principal witness and stated the contract by way of loan at usurious interest, and his evidence went clearly to prove the plaintiff's case.

ERSKINE for the defendant, asked him what representations he had made to one Schullemberg, as to the money advanced by him Schullemberg.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. held this question inadmissible. The witness said that the money advanced by the defendant, was not upon the same terms. The object of the question was to try the credit of the witness; for it was stated to be the fact, that Chambonas had represented to De Willot, Schullemberg and others, that he had means of em

* I have used the words general questions, here, because I find them upon my notes as attributed to LAWRENCE, J. but I do not precisely understand, whether his lordship meant to say, that general questions might be put to a witness in cross-examination or that his evidence was to be discredited by general evidence of incredibility, i. e. by general questions put to other witnesses as to his credibility. See my note of the opinion delivered by LAWRENCE, J. post. page 291.

SPENCELY qui tam

versus

DE WILLOT.

1806.

SPENCELY

qui tam

versus

ploying money in mercantile speculations, by which he could make large profits, and upon this speculation they advanced several sums to him upon an agreeDE WILLOT. ment to share the profits. An action was brought for usury against Schullemberg also, and if he misrepresented the fact as to Schullemberg, it was intended to call him to discredit the witness by contradicting him; or if he stated that the contract was the same, it would appear that there was no usury. The plaintiff's counsel put in a latitat and affidavit of debt by De Willot against De Chambonas, on which the latter was arrested as for money lent, to shew that he had considered it as a loan; but ERSKINE intended to meet this by shewing that the money was to be repaid at all events, but the amount of the gain, or whether there was to be any gain at all, was to depend upon the amount of the profits made. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for 25,0001. damages, and upon ERSKINE moving for a rule to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, on the ground of the rejection of this evidence, or the refusal to go into the cross-examination upon. this point, the court refused the rule as to that particular, although it was granted as to another point, which went upon the unduly influencing of the jury, by distributing a certain memorial in court, previous to the trial.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "I do not feel that we can grant the rule on the first ground. We cannot try all these cases in one cause. There were several actions for usury by the same plaintiff against several emigrants, and De Schullemberg was one. His cause stood next in the paper. The witness said that the contract between him and De Willot differed from that made with Schullemberg; the question can therefore tend to prove nothing relative to the issue, and, if we are to examine the witness as to other causes, in