rials, tools, or implements provided for making, altering, or repairing a turnpike road, may be described as belonging to the trustees or commissioners of such road, without specifying their names. 7 Geo. 4. c. 64. s. 17. Vide ante, p. 208. And lastly, property under the commissioners of sewers, may be described as belonging to the commissioners of sewers within or under whose view, cognizance, or management it shall be, without specifying their names. 7 Geo. 4. c. 64. s. 18. Vide ante, p. 209.

If the name of the prosecutor be mis-spelt, it is immaterial where it was spelt Whyneard, and the real manner of spelling it was Winyard, and it was pronounced Winnyard, the judges held it to be sufficient. R. v. Foster, R. & R. 412. So, if the name by which he is usually called be used, it will be sufficient: where the prosecutor was called in the indictment John Hancox, his real name being John Walter Hancox, but he was usually called and known by the name of John Hancox, Park, J. held it to be sufficient. R. v. Berriman, 5 Car. & P. 601. So, where the real name was Richard Jeremiah Pratt, but he was named in the indictment Richard Pratt, the name by which he was generally known, it was holden sufficient. Anon. 6 Car. & P. 408. So, where the prosecutrix was named in the indictment by a name which she had assumed, and by which alone she was known in the neighbourhood, the judges held it sufficient. R. v. Norton, R. & R. 510.

5. And lastly, the offence must be proved to have been committed in the county or place stated as venue in the margin of the indictment. It is not necessary, however, to prove it to have been committed within the parish or place alleged in the body of the indictment as special venue; nor indeed is it now necessary to state any such parish or place, the county alone being sufficient. See stat. 6 G. 4. c. 50. s. 13. ante, p. 180, 181. If the offence be committed on the boundaries of two or more counties, or within 500 yards of such boundaries, it may be tried in either county, in the same manner as if it had been actually committed therein. 7 Geo. 4. c. 64. s. 12. Vide ante, 204. Or if committed on a person, or with respect of property, in or upon a coach, waggon, or other carriage, or on board a vessel, &c. on a navigable river, canal, or inland navigation, the offence may be tried in any county through which the carriage or vessel may have passed in its journey or voyage, in the same manner as if it had been actually committed in such county. 7 Geo. 4. c. 64. s. 13. Vide ante, 205. At common law also, if a man stole goods in one county, and carried them into another, he might be indicted and tried in either; and now, by stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 29. s. 76. if any person, having stolen or other

The Court may, for all offences within this act, order hard labour and

solitary confinement.

wise feloniously taken any chattel, money, or valuable security, or other property whatsoever, in any one part of the united kingdom, shall afterwards have the same property in his possession in any other part of the united kingdom, he may be dealt with, indicted, tried, and punished for larceny or theft in that part of the united kingdom where he shall have such property, in the same manner as if he had actually stolen or taken it in that part. Vide post. Where a man stole goods at Jersey, brought them into the county of Dorset, and was indicted there for the larceny, the judges held that it was not a case within the meaning of the above section, and that the prisoner could not be indicted in England for the larceny. R. v. Prowes, R. & M. 349. Where a man stole a brass furnace in Radnorshire, broke it in pieces there, and then brought the pieces of brass into the county of Hereford Hullock, B. held that he could not be indicted in Hereford for stealing the furnace there, it never having in fact been there. R. v. Halloway, 1 Car. & P. 127. But no distance of time between the stealing and carrying the property into another county will prevent the party from being indicted in the latter county: and therefore where the property was stolen by the prisoner in Yorkshire, in November, 1823, and brought by him into Durham in March, 1824, the judges held that he might be indicted for the larceny in Durham. R. v. Parkin, R. & M. 45. Where the prisoners stole two horses at different times, and at different places in Somersetshire, but brought both at the same time into Wilts, and had them there together in their possession, Littledale, J. held that this did not warrant the including both larcenies in one indictment; and he therefore put the prosecutor to his election as to which horse he would prosecute. R. v. Smith and Jefferies, R. & M. N. P. C. 295.

IV. And, with regard to the place and mode of imprisonment for all indictable offences punishable under this act, be it enacted, That where any person shall be convicted of any felony or misdemeanor punishable under this act, for which imprisonment may be awarded, it shall be lawful for the court to sentence the offender to be imprisoned, or to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour, in the common gaol or house of correction, and also to direct that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement

for the whole or any portion or portions of such imprisonment, or of such imprisonment with hard labour, as to the court in its discretion shall seem meet.

money, bond,

or warrants

felony, and

for stealing

like value.

V. And be it enacted, That if any person shall Stealing pub. lic or private steal any tally, order, or other security what- securities for soever, entitling or evidencing the title of any bill, note, &c. person or body corporate to any share or interest or orders for in any public stock or fund, whether of this goodskingdom, or of Great Britain or of Ireland, or of punishable as any foreign state, or in any fund of any body goods of the corporate, company, or society, or to any deposit in any savings bank, or shall steal any debenture, deed, bond, bill, note, warrant, order or other security whatsoever for money or for payment of money, whether of this kingdom or of any foreign. state, or shall steal any warrant or order for the delivery or transfer of any goods or valuable thing every such offender shall be deemed guilty. of felony, of the same nature and in the same degree and punishable in the same manner as if he had stolen any chattel of like value with the share, interest, or deposit to which the security so stolen may relate, or with the money due on the security so stolen or secured thereby and remaining unsatisfied, or with the value of the goods or other valuable thing mentioned in the warrant or order; and each of the several documents hereinbefore enumerated shall throughout pretation. this act be deemed for every purpose to be included under and denoted by the words "valuable security."

Rule of inter

stating his wish to borrow 5,000l., and the prisoner called upon him in consequence of it; the prisoner offered to obtain the loan for him, upon his acceptance of ten bills of exchange for 5001. each, and he produced ten 6s. stamps, which the prosecutor accepted in blank, and which the prisoner took away with him, and afterwards had bills drawn upon them for 500l. each by a person in concert with him, of the name of Clissold: he was afterwards indicted for this, as for a larceny of ten bills of exchange for 500l. each, of ten pieces of paper each stamped with a six-shilling stamp, and of ten pieces of paper with the words " Accepted F. Dugdale Astley, payable at Messrs. Praed & Co. 189, Fleetstreet, London" upon each: Littledale J., Bolland B., and Bosanquet, J., held that the prisoner could not be convicted upon this evidence; when these acceptances were obtained by him, they were not bills of exchange, orders or securities for money, neither drawer's name, sum, nor date being upon them, and of course they were then of no precise or definite value; nor could the prisoner be convicted on those counts which described these acceptances as ten pieces of paper, with stamps on them &c., because the stamps never belonged to the prosecutor, but to the prisoner. R. v. Minter Hart, 6 Car. & P. 106.

To be a valuable security for money, within the meaning of this act, the bill, order, &c. must be stamped, where by law such a security requires a stamp; and therefore where a person was indicted for obtaining an order for the payment of 21. by false pretences, and the order appeared to be an unstamped cheque on a banker, which from the manner in which it was drawn, required a stamp, the judges held that it was not a valuable security within the meaning of this act. R. v. Yates, R. & M. 170. See sect. 53 of this statute post, and sect. 5. ante.

Robbery.

Death.

VI. And be it enacted, That if any person shall rob any other person of any chattel, money, or valuable security; every such offender, being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon. Stealing from And if any person shall steal any such property assaults with from the person of another; or shall assault any mit robbery; other person, with intent to rob him; or shall,

the person;

intent to com.

and demands

accompanied with menaces or by force, demand any such pro

with nenaces

or force, with perty of any other person, with intent to steal the

intent, &c.;

same every such offender shall be guilty of

or imprison

felony; and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be trans- transportation ported beyond the seas for life, or for any term ment, &c. not less than seven years; or to be imprisoned (2) for any term not exceeding four years, and, if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped (if the court shall so think fit), in addition to such imprisonment.

VII. And be it declared and enacted, That if Obtaining

money, &c.

ing to accuse

a party of an infamous

any person shall accuse or threaten to accuse any by threatenother person of any infamous crime, as hereinafter defined, (3) with a view or intent to extort or crime: robgain from him, and shall, by intimidating him by bery. such accusation or threat, extort or gain from him any chattel, money, or valuable security: every such offender shall be deemed guilty of robbery, and shall be indicted and punished accordingly.

1. Indictment for Robbery.

BERKSHIRE, to wit: The jurors for our lord the king, upon their oath present, that A. B., late of the parish of in the county aforesaid, labourer, on the third day of November, in the fifth year of the reign of our sovereign lord William the Fourth, by the grace of God of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland king, defender of the faith, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid, in and upon one W. T., in the peace of God and of our said lord the king then and there being, feloniously did make an assault, and him the said W. T. in bodily fear and danger of his life then and there feloniously did put, and ten pieces of the current gold coin of the realm, called sovereigns, of the value of ten pounds, and one gold watch of the value of twenty pounds ["chattel, money, or

(2) Or imprisoned and kept to hard labour, s. 4, ante, p.

286.

(3) By sect. 9, post, p. 299.