« ForrigeFortsett »
1806. act, for any thing that appeared in that case, which . K > might give reason to infer, that it never had the benevenus fit of the 43 Eliz. But here, it is found as a fact that Atsun. the poor have always, up to the year 1739, been maintained by the whole parish."
It was' ordered that the case should go back to be re-stated.
Stat. 43 Eliz. e. 2, Separate townships or parishes. Four rate.
The King against Woodcock.—29th Jan.
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 staled an information for an offence committed within 3 months last past, to wit, on the 22cJ of May last past, and the evidence was staled of a fact committed on the 22d day of May, without stating in what gear, and without reference to the said 22d duy,of May, to ascertain the year; it was quashed.
JN 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 I'iA day of May, now last past, at lialtsrcorth aforesaid, in the said countv of Suffolk, did wet, water, and sprinkle, and cause and suffer to be wetted, watered, and sprinkled, certain corn and gram of hhn the said defendant then and there making into ma't in' a certain state and stage of operation, &c. against the form of the statute, where- i860 by he forfeited 2001.; and prayed the judgment of xhTiONo
the justices, in the premises ; and that the said defen- t«-«* • , . . , . , , . , Woodcock.
dant might be summoned to answer the premises, Ke-
1806. us the said justices for his further defence in the preTh« Kixo mises> hut no other evidence is now here produced lo
wrtut U8 the said justices." Woodcock.
Alderson ohjected that the conviction did not state, in the evidence, a fact committed within the time of three months next previous to which time the juris* diction 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 22d of May last past, and the evidence stating, that the fact was committed on the 22dday of May, it must be pre'sumed 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 con. victiou, that it was impossible that the eridence could
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 wherebv to ascertain what year is meatir, and non liquet upon this statement, but they had evidence of a fact cominitted on the 22d day of May 180a."
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 committed on the 22d of May, will support a conviction for any other year than the year lfe05."
Et per curiam.
. The Conviction Quashed.
Sj>encely qui tarn against De Willot.—27th Jan.
On crsss examination to try the credit of a witness, held that only Cro«sexsmin»
generalquestions can be put, or such as relate to the issue in ques- lion. Credit of
lion; 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.*
HP HIS was an action for usury on a contract of loan
between the defendant, and one dc Chambonas an _ Jf""' emigrant French marquis. At the trial before Lord Euenborough, C.J. the Marquis de Chambonas was the principal witness and slated 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 tie had made to one Schullemberg, as to the money advanced by him Schullemberg.
Lord Ellenborouuu, C. J. held this question inadmissible. The witness said that the money advanced by the difndant, 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 fi Ulot, Schullemberg and others, that he had means of em
* I have used the words general quc-.ti;;:is, here, because I find them upon my notes as attributed to Lawrence, J. but 1 do not precisely understand, whether his lordship meant to say, that general questions mig!it 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 891.
No. xxxi. N. s. P p
1806. ploying money in mercantile speculations, by which SrtNCF.LY he could make large profits, and upon this speculation <i»i tam they advanced several sums to hial upon an agreehw. Yvii.lut. ment to share the profits. An action was brought for usury against Sc/iul/emberg also, and if lie misrepresented the fact as to Schulltm/terg, 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 Cliambonas, on which the latter Was arrested as for money lent, to shew that he had considered it as a loan ; but EitSkime intended to meet this by shewing that the money was to be repaid at ail events, but the amount of the gain, or whether there was to be any gnin at all, ■was to depend upon the amount of the profits-made. The plaintiff" obtained a verdict for 25,0001. damages, and upon EitsKiNii moving for a rule to shew cause v. hy 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 Ellenbouough, 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 Schutlctnberg 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 Schullembcrg; 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