Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1777.

CASE.

ing to be a receipt given on the 16 June 1777, by one John Clifford, in the words, letters, figures, and cyphers following, to wit," 1777, June 16. Bank-notes C. £.3210." with inten- HARRISON'S tion to defraud the corporation called the London Assurance. The third and fourth counts framed on the statute 7 Geo. II. c. 22. charged him with altering and uttering a certain accountable receipt for Bank-notes for payment of money (setting it out as before) to wit, the said sum of two hundred and ten pounds, by prefixing the figure 3 to the said figures and cypher 210, whereby the words, letters, figures and cypher "1777, June 16. Bank-notes C. £.210," together with the See 2 East, figure 3, imported that John Clifford, a Clerk of the Bank of England, had received Bank-notes to the amount of 32107. with intention to defraud the London Assurance. Four other counts charged the intention to defraud the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. Four others charged the intention to defraud the London Assurance of houses and goods from fire. And twelve others the same as the preceding, only that the year "1777" was omitted therein.

It appeared in evidence, that the London Assurance, to whom the prisoner was Accomptant, kept their cash with the Bank of England; for which purpose the Bank furnished the London Assurance with a book, the title of which is "Debt"or, The Bank of England with the London Assurance, "Creditor." On the debtor side, the Clerk of the Bank, when any money or bank-note is sent to him, enters the date, and what it is that is paid in; then he signs his name, and afterwards writes the sum, putting a bar or dash before the figures in order to prevent another figure being prefixed or subjoined. When the London Assurance send for money, they send an order to the Cashier of the Bank to write off so much from their Bank-book. The Bank-book is in the custody of the Accomptant, and he sends it, with the write-off, by a confidential clerk; and upon producing it to the Cashiers of the Bank, they give him the money, and write off the sum paid in the book. On 16 June 1777, the Company paid into the Bank the sum of 210l. which was received by a Clerk

C. L. 979,

980.

1777.

HARRISON'S

CASE.

of the name of John Clifford who made an entry in the book as follows, "1777, June 16. Bank-notes C. £.210," to which sum the prisoner prefixed the figure 3 making thereby the sum received appear to have been 32107.

THE fact of prefixing the figure, in the manner charged in the indictment, was proved by very full and satisfactory evidence; but it was objected that this was not a case within the statutes 2 Geo. II. c. 25. and 31 Geo. II. c. 22. s. 78. they being confined to the forgery of receipts for money or goods, and that as this was a charge of forging a receipt for Banknotes, which were neither money nor goods, the counts framed on these statutes did not apply, and this objection being allowed the Jury found the prisoner guilty on the 3d, 4th, 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th counts, viz. on those counts which were framed on the statute 7 Geo. II. c. 22. and acquitted him of those on 2 Geo. II. c. 25. and he received sentence of death; but the sentence was respited, and the two following questions submitted to the consideration of THE TWELVE

JUDGES:

FIRST, Whether the entry made by the Cashier in the Bank-book could be considered in law as an accountable receipt for the payment of money, within the meaning of the 7 Geo. II. c. 22?

SECONDLY, Whether that statute extends to the offence committed; the Jury having found the offence to have been committed with intent to defraud a corporation; and the statute 31 Geo. II. c. 22. s. 78. which extends the 2 Geo. II. c. 25. to corporations, being entirely silent with respect to the offences described in 7 Geo. II. c. 22. on which statute alone the counts were framed on which the prisoner was found guilty?

THE JUDGES were clearly of opinion, on the first point, that an entry in a Bank-book is an accountable receipt within the meaning of the Act; but no opinion was publicly given: As to the second point, it was further reserved, and a day was appointed for HOWARTH to argue it before THE TWELVE

JUDGES at Serjeants'-Inn, but no argument took place, and the prisoner was some time after pardoned (a).

(a) It seems that upon this point the Judges decided in favour of the prisoner, 2 East, C. L. 988. But the legislature, by 18 Geo. III. c. 18. has now removed all doubt upon this question, by enacting, That persons guilty of the several species of forgery mentioned in the statute 7 Geo. II. c. 22. with intention to defraud any corporation whatsoever, shall suffer death as felons, without benefit of clergy.-See also the statutes 41 Geo. III. c. 39. and 45 Geo. III. c. 89.

1777.

HARRISON'S
CASE.

THE KING against FRANCIS MERCIER.

CASE XCII.

AT the Old Bailey in December Session, 1777, Francis If a person i Mercier, otherwise Louis Le Butte, was tried before MR. dicted for feJUSTICE ASTON, present MR. BARON HOTHAM, and MR. mute upon his lony stand SERJEANT GLYNN, Recorder, for the wilful murder of David arraignment, the Court may Samuel Mondrey, on the 12th day of October preceding. He direct the was also charged on the Coroner's Inquisition with the Sheriff to remurder.

said

THE prisoner, when put to the bar to be arraigned, was asked by the Clerk of the Arraigns, in the usual form, whether he was Guilty or Not Guilty; but instead of making any answer he stood mute.

stand obstinately mute, sentence may be passed without further THE COURT having in vain exhorted him to plead to the indictment and inquisition, directed the Sheriff to return a Jury instanter, to try whether he stood mute through obstinacy or by the visitation of God; and a Jury being returned accordingly, the following oath was administered to them:

"You shall diligently enquire, and true presentment make "for and on behalf of our Sovereign Lord the King, whe"ther Francis Mercier, otherwise Louis Le Butte, the now prisoner at the bar, being now here indicted for the wilful "murder of David Samuel Mondrey, stands mute fraudulently, wilfully, and obstinately, or by the providence and act of God according to your evidence and knowledge. "So help you God,"

66

66

turn a Jury instanter to

try whether he stand mute obstinately, or by the visitation of God; and if they find that he enquiry.

See 4 Hawk.

P. C. c. 30.

S. 7.

1777.

MERCIER'S

CASE.

THE prisoner was a Frenchman; and it appeared by the evidence of John Gretton, Esq. the Magistrate, before whom his examination had been taken, when he was committed, that he had answered the Magistrate's questions to him in the English language; that he had received several letters from him, in his own hand-writing, in the English language, and that, in the opinion of Mr. Gretton, he understood and was able to speak English nearly as well as his native tongue. It also appeared on the oaths of two of the keeper's men who had attended him during his confinement, that he had spoken English very fluently to a Mr. Redshaw, for ten minutes the preceding evening; and that the very morning of his trial, one of the men, while attending to bring him up stairs to the Court, said to the persons who were conveying him, "You had better set him down on the bench as he cannot "stand," to which he answered, "No; I cannot sit." This expression appearing to have been lowly muttered rather than articulately made, it was requested by one of the Jury that some medical person should examine, Whether he had not swallowed some drug or other poisonous article, which from the apparent infirmity of his health, might have deprived him of the power of utterance. Mr. Ogle, an eminent surgeon, happening to be in Court, was accordingly desired to examine the prisoner, which he did; and being sworn, deposed, that on his asking the prisoner several questions, he made no answer, but shook his head, and put his hand upon his breast; that his pulse was exceedingly low and quick; that his tongue was rather moister than is usual; that there was no swelling or any other injury whatever about the stomach or its region; but that it was impossible for him to form any certain opinion whether he was, or was not, capable of speaking.

THE COURT then told the Jury that the question they had to try upon this evidence was whether the prisoner stood mute wilfully, fraudulently and obstinately, or by the visitation of God?

THE Jury, after consulting together for some time, found that the prisoner stood mute fraudulently, wilfully, and obstinately, and not by the visitation of God.

By 12 Geo. III. c. 20. it is enacted, "That if any person, "being arraigned on any indictment, or appeal for felony, "or on any indictment for piracy, shall upon such arraign❝ment stand mute, or will not answer directly to the felony "or piracy, such person so standing mute as aforesaid, shall "be convicted of the felony or piracy charged in such indict"ment or appeal, and the Court before whom he shall be so "arraigned, shall thereupon award judgment and execution "against such person in the same manner as if such person "had been convicted by verdict or confession, and such judgment shall have all the same consequences in every respect as a judgment on a conviction by verdict or confes

66

66

"sion."

MR. JUSTICE ASTON, (the Recorder not being then present,) immediately passed sentence of death upon the prisoner, pursuant to the statute 25 Geo. II. c. 37. and he was accordingly executed on the Monday following, and his body afterwards dissected and anatomized pursuant to such sentence (a).

(a) At the Summer Assizes for Wells, in 1792, a prisoner indicted for burglary stood obstinately mute and refused to plead, and sentence of death was passed upon him and he was executed.

1777.

MERCIER'S

CASE.

1778.

THE KING against LYON LYONS.

CASE XCIIL.

AT the Old Bailey in January Session 1778, Lyon Lyons A house unand Thomas Miller were tried before MR. SERJEANT GLYNN, Recorder, for burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Edward Smith, with intention to commit a fe

lony.

but not inhader repair, bited, is not house of the the dwellingowner, though part of his

THE Jury found a general verdict Guilty, subject to the property is opinion of the JUDGES, upon the following case:

deposited therein.

MR. SMITH had some time before purchased this house S. C. 2 East, with an intention to reside in it, and had moved some of his

497.

« AnteriorContinuar »