Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove :· 1. The threat or accusation.-It must be an accusation or a threat to accuse: and therefore where a man being already indicted for a rape, another person, not connected with the prosecution, threatened him that if he did not give him 301. he would hire witnesses to prove him guilty: this was holden not to be a threat to accuse, within the meaning of the statute; the accusation had been already made, and this was at most a threat to support it by evidence. Rex v. Joseph Gill, cor. Bayley, J., Sum. Ass. York. 1829. Upon an indictment for sending a threatening letter, it did not sufficiently appear, from the letter itself, of what offence the prisoner threatened to accuse the prosecutor: the judge, however, admitted parol evidence to explain it; and the prosecutor proved that having asked the prisoner what he meant by certain expressions in the letter, he answered that he meant that the prosecutor had taken indecent liberties with his person; and at the trial the prisoner himself asked the prosecutor whether he had not taken such liberties with him, which the prosecutor denied: the defendant being found guilty, the judges were of opinion that this parol evidence was properly received, and that the conviction was right. Rex v. James Tucker, R. & M. 134. If the indictment charge the prisoner with threatening to accuse, it must be proved that the threat was made use of to the prosecutor; see Dunkely's case, ante, p. 301: or if it appear that he made use of it to a third person, with intent that he should mention it to the prosecutor, this probably would be deemed sufficient within the meaning of the act. See Dict. by the judges in Paddle's case, ante, p. 301. 2. The intent.-That the accusation or threat was made with the intent stated in the indictment, must be proved by circumstances from which the jury may fairly presume it, if it do not sufficiently appear from the accusation or threat itself. And the intent proved, must be the intent laid; a variance would be fatal. 3. Indictment for sending a letter, threatening to accuse a man of a crime, with intent to extort money, &c. 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, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, knowingly and feloniously did send, ["send or deliver,"] to T. W., a certain letter, ["letter or writing,"] directed to the said T. W. by the name and description of Mr. T. W., threatening to accuse, ["accusing or threatening to accuse,"] him the said T. W. of having [attempted and endeavoured to commit a rape upon Ann the wife of the said A. B. see s. 8, 9, supra,] with a view and intent thereby then and there to extort and gain money, [" chattel, money, or valuable security,"] from the said T. W.; and which said letter is as follows, that is to say: [here set out the letter verbatim]; against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our lord the king, his crown and dignity. [Care must be taken to set out the letter correctly, as a variance would be fatal.] Evidence. To maintain this indictment 1. The prosecutor must produce the letter, and prove that he received it. 2. He must prove that the prisoner sent or delivered the letter to him, knowing the purport of it, in the same manner as directed in the last case but one, ante, p. 300. 3. He must prove the intent, as in the last case, ante, p. 302. church or chapel, and X. And be it enacted, That if any person Breaking and shall break and enter any church or chapel, and entering a steal therein any chattel; or having stolen any stealing chattel in any church or chapel, shall break out therein: of the same every such offender, being con- death. victed thereof, shall suffer death as a felon. 1. Indictment for breaking and entering a Church or Chapel, and stealing therein. in BERKSHIRE, to wit: The jurors for our lord the king upon their oath present, that A. B., late of the parish of 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, the church of the said parish ["a certain chapel"] there situate, feloniously did break and enter; and then and there in the said church, one silver cup ["any chattel"] of the value of six pounds, of the chattels of the parishioners of the said parish, in the said church then and there being found, then and there feloniously and sacrilegiously did steal, take, and carry away: against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our lord the king, his crown and dignity. If it be a parish church which has been broken and entered, add a count stating the chattel stolen to be the chattel of the rector, and another stating it to be the chattel of the churchwardens. If it be a chapel which is private property, state the ownership as in other cases of larceny. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove1. The breaking and entering. These are proved in the same manner as in burglary, post, p. 307 &c. See R. v. Wheeler and others, 3 Car. & P. 585. If you fail in proving the breaking or entering, the prisoner, it should seem, may still be found guilty of the simple larceny, and have judgment accordingly. Where persons were indicted for breaking and entering a chapel, and it appeared from the evidence that it was a dissenting chapel, Gaselee, J. and Vaughan, B. held that this section of the statute did not extend to it; it extends only to chapels of the church of England, and not to those of dissenters; that in stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 30. s. 2., relating to the burning of churches and chapels, where the legislature meant to protect the chapels of dissenters, they mentioned them expressly. R. v. Warren and Spencer, 6 Car. & P. 335, n. 2. The larceny in the church or chapel, as directed ante, p. 270 &c. Upon an indictment for sacrilege, on statute 1 Ed. 6. c. 12. s. 10, (which is the same in substance as to the larceny, as the present act,) it was doubted at first whether the articles stolen, namely, a snatch-block, which was used to raise weights in case the bells wanted repairing, and a pot for charcoal to air the vaults, were such goods as were entitled to the protection of the statute: but the judges held that they were; and thought that the violation of the sanctity of the place was the thing the statute meant to prevent. R. v. Catherine Rourke, R. & R. 386. To prove that the chattel stolen was the property of the parishioners, rector, or churchwardens, it is sufficient to prove that the church is a parish church; but the property in the goods of a chapel must be proved as in ordinary cases. Where, in an indictment for stealing a brass chandelier and sconces (not fixed to the freehold) from a chapel of protestant dissenters, the first count laid them to be the property of the trustees of the chapel by name, and the second count as the property of a person who took care of the chapel, kept the keys, &c. and received a salary for so doing the prosecutors failing to prove the first count, (not being prepared to prove the trust deed, or that all of the trustees acted in the trust or management,) the judges held that the second count could not be maintained, for the property taken could not be considered as belonging to the chapel-keeper. R. v. Hutchinson and Boffey, R. & R. 412. See R. v. Warren and Spencer, supra." In R. v. Boulton, 5 Car. & P. 537, where the prisoners were indicted for stealing a bible and hymn book, and a pair of brass sconces, the property of Jolin Bennett and others, it appeared that the prisoners had stolen them from the Methodist chapel at Feckenham; that the bible and hymn-book had been presented to the society of Methodists there, and that Bennett was one of the society, and also one of the trustees of the chapel, but the trust deed was not produced: J. Parke, J. held that as Bennett was one of the society, the property in the books was well laid in him and others. 2. Indictment for stealing in a Church or Chapel, and BERKSHIRE, to wit: The jurors for our sovereign 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, one silver cup [" any chattel"] of the value of six pounds, of the chattels of the parishioners of the said parish, in the church of the said parish [or "in a certain chapel"] there situate, then and there being found, then and there in the said church feloniously and sacrilegiously did steal, take, and carry away; and that the said A. B., being so as aforesaid in the said church, and having therein so committed the said felony as aforesaid in manner and form aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, feloniously did break out of the said church; against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our lord the king, his crown and dignity. See the note at the end of the last form. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove1. A larceny in the church, of the chattels stated in the indictment, or some of them, as in the last case. Burglary: death. 2. That the prisoner broke out of the church, after having committed the larceny. This may be proved in the same way as in burglary, post, p. 316, except that it is immaterial whether the prisoner broke out of the church in the day or in the night-time. 3. That the church or chapel is situate, as described in the indictment. XI. And be it enacted, That every person convicted of burglary, shall suffer death as a felon ; and it is hereby declared, that if any person shall enter the dwelling-house of another with intent to commit felony, or being in such dwellinghouse shall commit any felony, and shall in either case break out of the said dwelling-house in the night-time; such person shall be deemed guilty of burglary. I. Indictment for Burglary. 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, about the hour of eleven in the night of the same day, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the dwelling-house of C. D. there situate feloniously and burglariously did break and enter, with intent [the goods and chattels of the said C. D. in the said dwelling-house then and there being, then and there feloniously and burglariously to steal, take, and carry away]; and then and there in the said dwelling-house, with force and arms [one silver watch of the value of forty shillings, of the goods and chattels of the said C. D., in the said dwelling-house then and there being found, then and there feloniously and burglariously did steal, take, and carry away] against the peace of our lord the king, his crown and dignity. C. C. C. 87. If bank notes or other valuable security be stolen, it may be prudent to conclude "against the form of the statute,' &c.; for although this is not necessary as to the burglary, yet if you should fail in proving that, such a conclusion would be deemed necessary, in order to convict for the larceny. See R. v. Pearson, 5 Car. & P. 121, ante, p. 288. |