« ForrigeFortsett »
act, for any thing that appeared in that case, which The King might give reason to infer, that it never had the bene
versus fit of the 43 Eliz. But here, it is found as a fact that IYATSUN,
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.
'The King against WoodCOCK.—29th Jan. Stat. 43 Eliz.
2, Separate On a conviction before a justice of the peace, it must appear townships or expressly upon the statement of the evidence, that the offence parishes. Poor
was committed within the time limited for the conviction ; and it cannot be supplied by intendment or ly 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 quasłed. The King
IN a conviction before two justices for the county of WOODCOCK.
Suffolk, the information stated that, before and at the time of the committing of the offence thereina after 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 old day of May, noty Jast past, at Halescorth 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 liim the said defendunt then and there making into malt in a certain state and stage of
operation, &c. against the form of the statute, where- 1860 by he forfeited 2001.; and prayed the judgment of the the justices, in the premises ; and that the said defen- ,,, versus
WOODCOCK. 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 previously duły summoned, appeared to make his defence in his proper person, and having heard the said information 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 inforıner, proceed to examine unto the truth of the matters contained in the said information, and thereupon, on the day and year last aforesaid, at Woodbridge aforesaid, in the said county of Sufʻolk, William Robinson, supervisor of excise, and John Rogers, officer of excise, two credible witnesses, on the behalf of the said inforıner, 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 malta sier at Hnlesworth, in this county, that be 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 Avor 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 bis further defence in the preThe Kiss mises, but no other evidence is now here produced 10
versus us the said justices.” WOODCOCI,
Alderson objected that the conviction did not statę, in the evidence, a fact committed within the time of three inonths next previous to which time the jurisdiction of the justices was limited.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, and Freere was with bim, 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 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 ELLENBOROUGH, C.J. “It does not say on the same 22d day of May,' so as to refer to the information. Then your inforination is within s inonths 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 ot an offence comInitted on the 22d of May, will support a conviction for any other year than the year 1805." Et per curiam.
THE CONVICTION QUASHED.
Spencely qui tam against De Willor.—27th Jan.
general questions can be put, or such as relate to the issue in ques- tion. Credit of
SPENCELY THIS was an action for usury on a contract of loan
qui tam belween the defendant, and one de Chambonas an ve
DE WILLOT. emigrant French marquis. At the trial before Lord ELLENBOROUGH, 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 defendani, asked him what representations he had made to one Schullemberg, as to the money advanced by himn 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 lo try the credit of the witness; for it was stated to be the fact, that Chambonas had represented to De Vil. lot, Schullemberg and others, that he had means of em
* I have used the words general questis, 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. NO. XXXI, N. S.
tersus DE WILLOT.
1806. ploying money in inercantile speculations, by which
CELY he could make large profits, and upon this speculation qui tam they advanced several sums to him upoo an agree
meut to share the profits. An action was brought for usury against Schullemberg also, and if he misre. presented the fact as to Schullemberg, it was intended to call him to discredit the witness by contra. dicting him; or if he stated that ihe contract was the same, it would appear that there was no usury. The plaintify'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, te 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 25,000l. damages, and upon ERSKINE 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 menorial 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 jul 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 hiin 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