Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

publish in a certain other number of a certain
other public newspaper called The Nation, a
certain other printing of and concerning a
certain other treasonable revolution by him
the said C. G. D. then and there feloniously
devised and intended to be carried into effect
by force of arms, and by traitorously levy-
ing war against our said Lady the Queen,
and to deprive and depose our said Lady
the Queen, &c., and of and concerning the
said war intended to be levied as aforesaid,
which said last-mentioned printing is en-
titled "The Business of To-day," and con-
tains among other things according to the
tenor and effect following, that is to say
(selecting a portion of the article as in the
1st count) and further to fulfil, perfect, and
bring into effect his said last-mentioned
most evil and wicked felony and felonious
compassing, &c., he the said C. G. D., after-
wards, &c., and on the 17th day of June, in
the year, &c., "did feloniously publish in
one other number of the said public news-
paper called The Nation, a certain other
printing," &c., setting out a portion of the
article entitled "The Uses of the Union,"
and then proceeding as in the 1st count.

which was similar in form, charged the in-
tent to be to levy war:

Held, that the felonious publishings
averred in the first four counts were suffi-
ciently charged, and that it was not neces-
sary to set out verbatim the entire of the
printings or writings therein referred to :

Held also, that the counts were not double,
by reason of several distinct publications
being charged in each count:

And that publications were well laid as
"overt acts" of the felony charged:

Held also, that as the intention charged
against the prisoner was plainly expressed
by the printings themselves, as set out in
the indictment, no colloquium or inuendo
was necessary:

And also, that those portions of the counts
which charged the expression of a felonious
compassing on the 3rd of June, by publica-
tions on days subsequent to that date were
insensible and repugnant. But that those
overt acts which were ill laid might be re-
jected without vitiating the remaining por-
tions of the counts. Reg. v. Duffy, 294
Plea of infancy, in false pretences, 277
Laying property of partnership, 280

POISONING.

The 3rd and 4th counts were similar,
respectively, to the 1st and 2nd, but setting
out the publications as overt acts. The 5th
count charged that the prisoner, on the 3rd
of June, in the 11th year of the Queen,
feloniously did further compass, &c., to de-
prive and depose the Queen, and the said
last-mentioned compassing, &c., did then
and there feloniously express, &c., by divers
overt acts and deeds hereinafter mentioned,
that is to say, in order to fulfil, &c., his most
evil and wicked felony, &c., he, the said
C. G. D., on the said 3rd day of June, in the
said 11th year of the reign aforesaid, and
on divers other days and times after the said
3rd day of June, to wit, &c. (setting out the
dates of the publications), feloniously did
publish divers other printings in divers num-
bers of a certain public newspaper, called
The Nation, of which he the said C. G. D.
was the proprietor and publisher; and also
divers other writings of him the said C. G.
D., &c., the said last-mentioned printings Embezzlement by collector of, 208
and writings containing, amongst other
things, incitements, encouragements, &c.,
to the liege subjects, &c., in that part of the

A person who administers poison with intent
to kill, is guilty of felony under section
2 of 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, although,
through ignorance or mistake, he adminis-
ters it in a form which renders it innocuous.

The prisoner, with intent to kill, adminis-
tered to a child nine weeks old, two cocculus
indicus berries.

That berry is classed with narcotic poisons;
but the poisonous property resides in the
kernel, which is inclosed in a pod so hard,
that it could not be digested by a child of
that age. Therefore the pod rendered the
poison innocuous.

Held, nevertheless, that he was properly
convicted under the above section. Reg. v.
Cluderay, 84

POOR RATES.

POSSESSION.

POST-OFFICE.

LARCENY BY SERVANT OF.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ire- By child in parent's house, 272
land called Ireland, against our said Sove-
reign Lady the Queen to rise and rebel, and
treasonably to depose our said Sovereign
Lady the Queen from the style, &c., of the
imperial crown of the United Kingdom,
against the form of the statute, &c., and
against the peace, &c. The 6th count,

Quære, Whether a person in the employ of a
tradesman, being a district postmaster,
receiving wages for his trade services, but

neither being employed by, nor receiving
any remuneration from, the Post-office.
becomes, by assisting his master occasion-
ally in sending the letters and making up
the letter bags, a person employed by the
Post-office, within the 7 Will. 4, & 1 Vict,
c. 36.

But evidence that his master gave him a
paper, and told him to go before the magis-
trate to take the oath usually taken by
persons in the employ of the Post-office,
and get the paper properly filled up-that
he went away, and returned shortly after,
exhibited the paper, and said that he had
taken the oath, was

Held sufficient to show that he was in
such employ. Reg. v. Simpson, 275.

PRACTICE.

BAIL-JUDGE OF ASSIZE.

Where a judge of assize, who has the facts
before him, orders a prisoner, against whom
an indictment for murder is pending, to be
detained in custody; it is against the
practice of this court to reverse that order.
Reg. v. McAtavy and another, 444
Where, on the trial of an indictment for felony,
the counsel for the prisoner suggests that
the interpretation of a written document is
for the court, and their interpretation of it
being against him, he asks to have the point
reserved, and his request is acceded to, the
jury being asked to decide upon the other
facts of the case without reference to the
construction of the document:

Quære, whether, after conviction, the ver-
dict can be disturbed on the ground that the
construction of the paper was for the jury,
and that they have expressed no opinion
upon a material point which was peculiarly
for their decision? Reg. v. Smith, 43

CASE RESERVED.

Where the written case reserved does not, in
the opinion of the counsel who were in it
in the court below, fairly raise all the points
that were in issue, the proper course is to
apply to the judge reserving to amend it.
Reg. v. Smith, 43

APPEAL-ADMISSION TO BAIL.
Where, after conviction by a jury at an assizes,
questions of law have been reserved for the
Court of Criminal Appeal, the prisoner will
not be admitted to bail without the assent
of the judge before whom he was tried.
Reg. v. Harris, 21

VOL. IV.

m

INCOMPETENCY OF WITNESS.

Where a bill for rape on a child under the
age of ten years had been ignored by the
grand jury, in consequence of the judge
refusing to allow the child to be sworn as a
witness, on the ground of its want of know-
ledge of the obligation of an oath, the pri-
soner was ordered to be detained in custody
until the child could be properly instructed.
Reg. v. Baylis, 23

COPY OF INDICTMENT.

Where the application is opposed by the
Attorney-General, the court will not order
a party indicted for embezzlement to be
furnished with a copy of the indictments
found against him, though they are very
voluminous, and contain a great many
counts, but

Semble, that in such case the court will
order the accused to be furnished with a
full bill of particulars. Reg. v. Hughes,
448

COSTS OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

The court, which has been directed to pass
sentence on a prisoner, after a point reserved
for the decision of the Court of Criminal
Appeal, has power to allow the costs in-
curred in the latter court, and upon taxation
under an order to that effect, the briefs and
fees of two connsel will be allowed. Woolley,
452

COSTS OF PROSECUTION.

Statute 5 Will. & M. c. 11, s. 3, is not confined
to cases in which there is a legal obligation
upon public officers to prosecute, but entitles
them to costs if they institute a prosecution
in obedience to a duty of imperfect obliga-
tion only.

An illegitimate child found straying in the
streets, with marks of serious injury upon
its person, was taken before a magistrate,
who received evidence of acts of violence
committed upon the child by its father, and
recommended a prosecution. One of the
relieving officers took the child to the work-
house, and the guardians of the union pro-
secuted the father for ill-treating the child;
and although the father applied to them for
the child, and offered to pay any expense
which they had incurred, they refused to
give it up to him. It turned out, upon the
trial of the indictment, removed by the de-
fendant into this court, that, in fact, the
father had behaved generally with kindness
to the child, though on one occasion he had
punished it excessively, and the father was
convicted of an assault:

Held, that the guardians were entitled to
costs of prosecution, under 5 Will. & M.
c. 11, s. 3, they being civil officers, who, as
such, were concerned to prosecute. Reg. v.
Kenealey, 345

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

There is no distinction between depositions be-
fore a coroner and before a magistrate with
reference to the modes of cross-examination
upon them. A witness cannot, therefore, be
asked on cross-examination as to what he
said before the coroner. But the deposition
may be put into the witness's hands to read
over to himself and refresh his memory.
Reg. v. Barnet, 269

TAKING DEPOSITIONS BEFORE MAGIS-

TRATE.

Upon the trial of an indictment for felony, a
witness for the prosecution was asked by the
prisoner's counsel whether he did not make
a certain statement to the magistrates' clerk
in answer to a question put by him in the
absence of the magistrate and of the pri-
soner, whilst he (the clerk) was writing out
the depositions from the minutes of the
examination and cross-examination which
had been previously taken before the magis-
trate, and put for the purpose of making
the depositions more complete. The depo-
sitions, when written, were afterwards read
over to the witnesses, and in the presence
of the magistrate and the prisoner, to whom
opportunity of cross-examining them was
again afforded, the witnesses swore that they
were true, and signed them.

Held, that even if the depositions so taken
had, when re-sworn, the legal character of
depositions, the prisoner's counsel was en-
titled to ask the above questions without
putting them in, and the witness was bound
to answer it; but-

Semble, that the documents prepared by
the magistrate's clerk in the manner above
described had not the legal character of
depositions. Reg. v. Christopher, 76

DEPOSITIONS.

The deposition of a witness absent from illness,
to be admissible under stat. 11 & 12 Vict.
c. 42, s. 17, must be regular, and appear to
have been regularly taken upon the face
thereof, and cannot be proved by extraneous
evidence to have been properly taken in fact.
Reg. v. Miller, 166

The deposition of a witness before a magis-
trate cannot be put into his hands at the
trial to refresh his memory on cross-exami-
nation. Reg. v. Stokes, 451

DEMURRER-RESPONDEAT OUSTER.
In an indictment for felony, the judgment on
demurrer is final, and the prisoner is not
allowed to plead over. Reg. v. Hendy, 243

DEMURRER.

Where one of several prisoners included in an
indictment upon being arraigned has de-
murred to the indictment, the court will
not allow the demurrer to be argued until
the rest of the prisoners have pleaded or
demurred.

A general demurrer to an indictment con-
fesses the subject-matter of it, and judgment
against a defendant on such a demurrer is
final. Reg. v. Faderman, 359

DISABILITY OF CONVICTED FELON.
The Bishop of Ossory having instituted pro-
ceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court to re-
move the registrar of the diocese from his
office in consequence of his having been
convicted of forgery, and sentenced to
transportation, the registrar moved for a
prohibition to restrain the bishop from pro-
ceeding against him in the Ecclesiastical
Court.

The court refused to grant the writ, hold-
ing, first, that the registrar being a con-
victed felon, was therefore disqualified from
making the application; and, secondly, that
even if it were not so, the bishop was justi-
fied in proceeding by suit in the Ecclesias-
tical Court to deprive him of his office.
Grace v. Bishop of Ossory, 159

TRIAL OF A FOREIGNER.
An alien female, married to a natural-born
subject, becomes, by the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 66,
herself a British subject, to all intents and
purposes, and therefore, on an indictment
for murder against her, she is not entitled
to be tried by a jury de medietate linguæ.
Reg. v. Manning, 31

GRAND JURY.
Where the grand jury have ignored a bill, the
court will not permit a second bill of a like
nature to be presented to them at the same
session. Reg. v. Austin, 385

INDICTMENT.

An indictment having been found against the
prisoner by the grand jury of the county of
the city of Dublin, at the August session of
the court, which bill was not further pro-
ceeded on, the Attorney-General, under the
provisions of the statute 6 Geo. 4, c. 51,
preferred another bill against him for the
same offence to the grand jury of the next

INDEX.

infamous crime, 387

lxxv

adjoining county, and the indictment found | Indictment for threatening to accuse of an
in the city was quashed, but notice of the
change of jurisdiction was not served as
prescribed by the statute.

Held, that the Attorney-General was not
prohibited, by having indicted the prisoner
in the county, from again resorting to the
city jurisdiction.

But semble, that in such case the court
will not allow both bills to continue pending
against the prisoner. Reg. v. Duffy, 123.

QUASHING INDICTMENT.

The court will not, on the application of the
defendant, quash an indictment for perjury.
An indictment cannot be quashed in part.
Reg. v. Withers, 17

PRISONER'S STATEMENT.

Where a statement made by a prisoner before
the committing magistrates appears on the
face of it to have been duly taken under the
statute 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 26, and is at
the trial produced from the depositions of
the witnesses taken at the same time, and
appears to have been transmitted with
them; it is receivable in evidence, without
further proof. Reg. v. Harris, 147

PRISONER'S BAIL.

A prisoner against whom a bill has been found
for murder, and who has applied for, and
obtained, a postponement of his trial, will
not be admitted to bail. Reg. v. Langley, 157
As to search warrant, 1

Prisoner may plead over after demurrer, 24
In demurrer, 42

As to putting depositions in hands of witness, 93
Indictment for forgery, 94

Indictment for embezzlement, 101
Indictment of bankrupt for making away with
goods, 108

Pleading over, 139

As to grand jury, 172

Taking prisoner's statement before magistrate,

231

As to depositions of absent witness, 243
As to reserving case, 248

One prisoner may be evidence for another,

260

In cross-examination, 263, 279
As to admitting depositions, 402
As to reading depositions of witness absent
from illness, 440, 441, 442

Of grand jury on a bill for murder against
two, 455

PRECEDENTS.

Indictment and plea to same for non-repair of
a bridge, under the statute of bridges, 281

Indictment for conspiring to obtain money by
false pretences, 390

Indictment for keeping a lunatic asylum
without a licence, under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100
(No. 1), App. i.

Indictment for obtaining money by falsely
pretending that the defendant was the
secretary to a society called "The Animal's
Friend Society," and duly authorized to
collect subscriptions on its behalf (No. 2),
App. iii.

Indictment under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 31, s. 2, for
shooting at the Queen with intent to injure
her (No. 3), App. v.
Indictment for perjury committed before the
Commissioners of Bankruptcy, with counts
under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, s. 81 (No. 4),
App. vi.

Indictment for conspiracy to obtain money by
falsely pretending that the defendants were
in a large way of business, requiring clerks
and servants to conduct it, and then de-
manding, from those who offered them-
selves, money to be deposited as security for
their good behaviour (No. 5), App. xiii.
Indictment for selling a diseased cow in a
public market (No. 6), App. xiv.
Indictment for perjury committed on the trial
of a cause in the County Court (No. 7),
App. xvi.

Indictment under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29,
s. 23, for stealing deeds evidencing the title
to real estate; with counts for conspiracy
(No. 8), App. xviii.

Indictment under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 96, for
threatening to publish a libel with intent to
extort money (No. 9), App. xxii.

Indictment under the 59 Geo. 3, c. 69, for
equipping a vessel to be employed in the
service of a foreign state against another
state with which this country is at peace;
with counts for conspiracy (No. 10), App.
xxvii.

Indictment against an inhabitant of a ward in
the city of London, for refusing to execute
the office of one of the wardmote inqnest
(No. 11), App. xxix.

Indictment against a defendant for obtaining
money by falsely pretending that he had
then purchased certain property, which it
was necessary he should immediately pay
for (No. 12), App. xxxiii.

Indictment for a conspiracy to obtain posses-
sion of goods by false pretences (No. 13),
App. xxxv.

Indictment for a conspiracy to defraud a railway
company by travelling without a ticket on
some portion of the line-obtaining a ticket
at an intermediate station, and then deliver-

ing it up at the terminus as if no greater dis-

PROSECUTION.

tance had been travelled over by the passenger Cost of, for assault, 345
than from such intermediate station to the
terminus (No. 13*), App. xxxviii.

Indictment against two defendants for obtain-

PROSTITUTION.

RAPE.

RECEIVING.

ing money under false pretences, the false Conspiracy to procure, 42
pretences being that one of the defendants
having advanced money to the other on a
deposit of certain title deeds, had himself de-
posited the deeds with a friend, and that he
required a sum of money to redeem them, What is, 220
with counts for conspiracy (No. 14), App. xli.
Indictment for obtaining money, by falsely
pretending that the defendant was the
authorized agent of the Executive Com-
mittee of the Exhibition of the Works of
Industry of all Nations, and that he had
power to allot space to private individuals
for the exhibition of their merchandize
(No. 15), App. xlv.

PREVENTION OF OUTRAGE ACT.
In an indictment against a traverser, under 11
& 12 Vict. c. 2, for having in his possession,
in a proclaimed district, fire-arms and am-
munition, without licence, it was averred
that the proclamation and notice required
by the act had been duly published in The
Dublin Gazette, and duly posted according
to the provisions of the Act. No proof of
posting throughout the entire district men-
tioned in the proclamation having been
given, and the traverser being convicted
on case reserved, pursuant to 11 & 12 Vict.
c. 78, for the Court of Criminal Appeal,
the principal question was, whether it was
necessary to prove the posting of the pro-
clamation as directed by the 2nd section
to sustain the conviction?

Held, that the 2nd count of the indict-
ment, framed under the 9th section, was
sufficiently sustained, as it was only necessary
to prove the issuing of the proclamation to
sustain a conviction for carrying arms con-
trary to the provisions of the 9th section,
and that the averment "and duly posted"
was an immaterial and unnecessary aver-
ment, which did not require to be proved,
and might be struck out as mere surplusage,
and that the conviction on the 2nd count
was right. Reg. v. Otway, 59

PRISONER.

Practice as to, when a witness is too young to
take an oath, 23

PRISONER'S STATEMENT.

Practice as to, 147, 203

PROPERTY.

Description of, in indictment, 143
Of partnership, in whom to be laid, 280

JOINT, BY HUSBAND AND WIfe—Verdict.
Husband and wife were jointly indicted for
feloniously receiving stolen property. The
evidence proved a separate act of receiving
by the husband. The jury returned a
general verdict of guilty against both.

Held, that the verdict was divisible, and
the conviction might be reversed as to the
wife, and affirmed as to the husband.

The stolen property was found at the
house in which the prisoners lived, when
the husband was not at home; but after-
wards, when the property was shown to
him, he stated that he had bought it of
A. B., who was in custody on the charge of
stealing it.

Held, sufficient evidence of a receipt by
him. Reg. v. Matthews, 214

EVIDENCE OF.

A. and B. having stolen two cocks and five
hens, were seen, at four in the morning, to
go into the house of C.'s father with a sack
which contained the stolen property. C.
lived with his father. A. and B. remained
in the house about ten minutes, and were
then seen to come out of the back door, pre-
ceded by C. with a candle, A., as before,
carrying the sack, and to go into a stable
situate in an enclosed yard at the back of
the house. The stable door was shut by one
of them; and on the policemen going in
they found the sack lying on the floor, tied
at the mouth, and the three men standing
round it, as if they were bargaining, but no
words were heard. C., on being charged
with receiving the poultry, knowing it to
have been stolen, said he did not think he
would have bought the hens. C. being
indicted for receiving, the jury were told
that the taking of A. and B. with the stolen
goods, as above by C., into the stable over
which he had control, for the purpose of
negotiating about buying them, he well
knowing the goods to have been stolen,
was a receiving of the goods within the
meaning of the statute.

« ForrigeFortsett »