no general rule could be laid down. Every case must be decided by its own particular circumstances. His Lordship said, as the subject was about to come under the consideration of Parliament, the Judges had not lost any time in considering the questions submitted to them; and as they were unanimous, with the exception, as he before said, of Mr. Justice Maule, they did not consider it necessary to give their opinions seriatim. The first question propounded for their consideration was as follows: :

"What is the law respecting alleged crimes committed by persons afflicted with insane delusion in respect of one or more particular subjects or persons; as, for instance, where at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, the accused knew he was acting contrary to law, but did the act complained of with a view, under the influence of insane delusion, of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance or injury, or of producing some supposed public benefit?"

With respect to this question the opinion of the Judges was, that notwithstanding the party committing a wrong act when labouring under the idea of redressing a supposed grievance or injury, or under the impression of obtaining some public or private benefit, he was liable to punishment.

Second question-"What are the proper questions to be submitted to the jury, when a person alleged to be afflicted with insane delusion respecting one or more particular subjects or persons is charged with the commission of a crime, murder for example, and

The Judges, in answer to this question, wished him to state that they were of opinion the jury ought in all cases to be told, that every man should be considered of sane mind, unless it was clearly proved in evidence to the contrary. That before a plea of insanity should be allowed, undoubted evidence ought to be adduced that the accused was of diseased mind, and that at the time he committed the act he was not conscious of right or wrong. This opinion related to every case in which a party was charged with an illegal act, and a plea of insanity was set up. Every person was supposed to know what the law was, and therefore nothing could justify a wrong act, except it was clearly proved the party did not know right from wrong. If that was not satisfactorily proved, the accused was liable to punishment, and it was the duty of the Judges so to tell the Jury when summing up the evidence, accompanied with those remarks and observations as the nature and peculiarities of each case might suggest and require.

With regard to the third question, viz. :- "In what terms ought the question to be left to the jury, as to the prisoner's state of mind at the time when the act was committed?"-the Judges did not give an opinion.

The fourth question was

"If a person under an insane delusion, as to existing facts, commits an offence in consequence thereof, is he thereby excused?"

The answer to this question was, that the Judges were unanimous in opinion, that if the delu. sion was only partial, that the

with a person of sane mind. If the accused killed another in selfdefence, he would be entitled to an acquittal; but if committed for any supposed injury, he would then be liable to the punishment awarded by the laws to his crime. With regard to the last question

"Can a medical man, conversant with the disease of insanity, who never saw the prisoner previously to the trial, but who was present during the whole trial and the examination of all the witnesses, be asked his opinion as to the state of the prisoner's mind at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, or his opinion whether the prisoner was conscious at the time of doing the act that he was acting contrary to law? or whether he was labouring under any, and what, delusion at the time?"

The Judges were of opinion that the question could not be put to the witness in the precise form stated above, for by doing so they would be assuming that the facts had been proved. That was a question which ought to go to the Jury exclusively. When the facts were proved and admitted, then the question, as one of science, could be generally put to a witness under the circumstances stated in the interrogatory.

These opinions of the Judges were then ordered to be printed and entered on the Journals of the House.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL

COURT, March 6th.

Joshua Jones Ashley, aged 35, described as an agent, was indicted for stealing four silver spoons

of 8., the property of John Howse, from the Junior United Service Club.

Mr. Prendergast defended the prisoner.

Mr. Clarkson (with whom was Mr. Bodkin) stated the case on behalf of the prosecution, and said the prisoner was indicted for larceny, committed under very peculiar circumstances and though a question of law might arise, still he thought he should be able to show that he was guilty of the offence imputed to him. Theprisoner was formerly a banker and army agent in Regent-street, and moved in such a station in society as to enable him to become a member of several of the fashionable clubs at the west end of the town; amongst these were the Junior United Service, the Union, the Colonial, the Reform, and the Erectheium. From time to time quantities of plate had been lost from these several clubs, and at length circumstances transpired which led to the actions of the prisoner being watched. At the time the offence named in the indictment was committed he resided at No, 3, Allington-street, Pimlico. An officer was set to

watch the house on the 15th of February, and in the course of the day the prisoner was followed to the shop of Mrs. Emmett, a silversmith on Holborn-hill, where he produced four silver spoons (which would be proved to have been stolen from the club-house on the previous day), and which he requested to have engraved with his initials "J. J. A." As soon as he left the shop, he was accosted by the officer who had been watching him, and he was then taken into custody. The account given of

very unsatisfactory, and upon an examination being made it was found that the initials of the club had been erased from the spoons. The officers then went to his lodgings, and on examining his drawers and boxes found the fork mentioned in the indictment, a great number of pawnbrokers' duplicates, and three small files. Then came the question, and which was one more for the consideration of the Court than the jury, whether the prisoner could be indicted for stealing property with respect to which he had a joint right and he invited his Lordship's attention to the point. The steward, John Howse, was intrusted with the property, and he (Mr. Clarkson) apprehended that the prisoner might, under such circumstances, be indicted for stealing the property of Howse. He then cited several cases in support of the legality of the indictment.

The Recorder said, the learned counsel had better call his witnesses, and then, if the question was mooted, it might be more fully argued.

The following witnesses were then called

Charles Burgess Goff, examined by Mr. Bodkin.-I am a police constable of the A division. On the 15th of February, in consequence of instructions I received, I watched the house No. 3, Allington-street, Pimlico. About 1 o'clock in the day I saw the pri soner leave the house, and I followed him to the shop of Mrs. Emmett, a jeweller on Holbornhill. When he went in I looked through the window and saw him deliver a parcel to a person in the shop. I then went in and saw the

from the parcel, and the prisoner desired that his initials "J. J. A.” might be engraved upon them, as had been done on others. I followed the prisoner out of the shop and asked him to whom the spoons belonged; he said they were his own. I told him that I suspected they had been stolen from the Junior United Service Club. He said that he was a member of the club, that he had had the spoons four years, and had taken out the initials for the purpose of having his own put on. I then took him into custody, and upon searching him, found in his pocket two keys and a card case. I subsequently went to the prisoner's lodgings, and in a drawer, which was opened by one of the keys found upon the prisoner, I found a small bunch of keys, one of which opened a small box in the same room; in that I found the silver fork produced, and a great number of duplicates.

Cross-examined. When I first spoke to the prisoner, he at once admitted that he was a member of the club.

Inspector Pearce, examined by Mr. Clarkson.-On the 15th of February I saw the prisoner at the station-house. I asked his name and address, and he said, "Ashley," and that he resided in Stockbridge-terrace, Pimlico. He then said, "This is a mistake altogether; I received the spoons from Mr. Rawlinson, a tailor, of 11, Stockbridge-terrace, about three weeks ago." I then said, am I to understand you reside in Stockbridge-terrace now?" and he said, that he did. I assisted the last witness to search the prisoner's lodgings, and in a drawer in the room, I found the three

duced appears to have had some initials filed off.

Cross-examined. - I am not aware that Mr. Rawnson (the person whom the prisorer called Rawlinson), is the owner of the hosue, 3, Allington-street, as well as 11, Stockbridge-terrace. The houses in the latter place are rather larger than in Allingtonstreet, but neither of them are at all elegant.

Benjamin Bullen, examined by Mr. Bodkin. I am in the employ of Mrs. Emmett, of Holborn-hill. I recollect the prisoner bringing the spoons on the morning in question, for the purpose of having them engraved. I had known the prisoner previously. Cross-examined. The prisoner dealt openly with the property, as if it was his own.

Hannah Storey, examined by Mr. Clarkson.-I reside with my aunt at No. 3, Allington-street; it is my aunt's own house. Mr. Rawnson has nothing whatever to do with it. The prisoner occupied the first-floor back room, and had done so for a month previous to his being taken into custody. On the morning that he was taken into custody he asked me for some brickdust and a leather, and I told him he would find some in the shed, and he went there for it.

Cross-examined.-I know Mr. Rawnson, and believe the prisoner was acquainted with him; but I am not aware that the prisoner was in the habit of having his letters, &c. addressed to Mr. Rawsnon's. I recollect his sending there for letters.

W. Thompson, examined by Mr. Bodkin. On the 14th of February I was engaged as waiter

Club, and assisted in preparing the tables for dinner. On one table I put two spoons and a fork. I saw the prisoner there that day, and particularly noticed him walking about the room when I was putting the spoons, &c., on the table. I missed them shortly after he went away.

Cross-examined. -I am not aware whether any other person saw me put the spoons on the table. I do not know that if any member takes away property from the club, he is compelled to restore it, and liable to be expelled.

William Andrews, examined by Mr. Clarkson.-I am assistantbutler at the Junior United Service Club. The plate belonging to the Club is marked "J. U. S. C." The spoons and fork produced appear to have had some marks erased from them at the back of the handle, the precise spot where the club spoons are marked. On the 14th of February I missed four large spoons and a large fork. The spoons and fork produced corresponded exactly with those taken from the club.

Cross-examined.-I missed the property from the pantry. It is not usual to have spoons marked at the back, though I have seen it done elsewhere The spoons are what are called king's pattern; and to the best of my belief they belong to the club.

John Howse, examined by Mr. Clarkson.-I am house-steward at the Junior United Service Club, and reside in the house. I have the care of all the plate, and am responsible for it. I believe the articles produced to be the property of the club.

Cross-examined. I have to provide provisions for the mem

The Recorder.-Are not minutes of the proceedings entered in a book kept for that purpose? Witness. Yes. I produce some spoons and forks belonging to the club, and which entirely correspond with those found in the possession of the prisoner.

The Recorder.-Have you on any previous occasion, when plate has been missed, been called upon to make it good?

Witness-I have. Some plate was missed in May last, which I was compelled to make good out of my own pocket.

The Recorder.-And the prisoner was a member of the club at that time?

Witness-He was. The Recorder. What was the amount you then paid?

Witness. Between 117. and 127. Although I paid the amount in the first instance, I afterwards made the whole of the servants pay it by means of a general subscription. The plate is locked up at night in a strong safe in the pantry. The plate is looked over every night, and sometimes three

butler.

Mr. Braithwaite, the sil versmith, furnished the plate to the club in lieu of that which was missing, and I paid him for it. The servants generally were made to pay for that loss, because it was presumed that the robbery had been committed by a servant. The under-butler is appointed by the committee.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Two legal objections were then taken by the prisoner's counsel to the validity of the indictment; the first that the club-house was not, as therein stated, the dwelling-house of John Howse, inasmuch as he was there only in the capacity of a servant. Secondly, that there was no proof whatever that the possession of the property was in Howse, but it rather appeared to be in the possession of the under-butler, who was distinctly appointed by the Club. The learned Recorder held both objections to be fatal, and the prisoner was consequently acquitted on this charge.

He was then again indicted for stealing on the 9th of October eight silver spoons, of the value of 10., from the Army and Navy Club, the property of Sir James Watson, Knight, and others.

In stating the case to the jury, Mr. Clarkson said he had been induced to proceed in the first instance with the preceding case, in order to obtain the opinion of the Court with respect to the position in which clubs were placed with regard to such property, and he could not help expressing his regret at the decision which had been pronounced. In the present case, however, he thought no question of law would arise, as