1790.

WILLIAMS'S
CASE.

already taken place, he was authorized to say, that MR. PORTER's family, notwithstanding the injuries they had received, did not mean to prosecute him farther.

THE COURT therefore passed sentence upon the three indictments on which he had been tried and convicted, viz. That for the assault on Miss Anne Porter he be confined in his Majesty's Gaol of NEWGATE for the space of Two Years: For the assault on Elizabeth Davis, that he be also confined Two Years, to commence from the expiration of the former sentence: For the assault on Elizabeth Baughan that he be also confined Two Years, to commence from the expiration of the former Four Years; and that at the end of the said Six Years he find security for his good behaviour for SevenYears, himself in the sum of two hundred pounds, and two sureties in the sums of one hundred pounds each.

CASE CCXL.

THE KING against WILLIAM TURNER.

An indictment AT Maidstone Summer Assizes 1790, William Turner was for a robbery on an unmar- indicted for a highway robbery on the person of Elizabeth ried woman in Hudson.

her maiden name is good, although she marry before the indict

ment is found.

It appeared on the examination of the prosecutrix, that she was unmarried at the time the robbery was committed, and that her name was Elizabeth Hudson, but that after the robbery, and at the time the bill was presented to and found by the Grand Jury, she was married to a person of the name of Heywood.

It was objected that this had rendered the indictment er

roneous.

BUT MR. JUSTICE GOULD, and L. C. B. EYRE, held the description by her maiden name, in this case, sufficient.

1790.

E

THE KING against MARTHA JONES.

AT the Old Bailey in September Session 1790, Martha Jones was indicted before LORD CHIEF BARON EYRE, present MR. JUSTICE GOULD, for that she, on the 1st July, about the hour of one in the night, the dwelling-house of Thomas Smith AND John Knowles feloniously and burglariously did break and enter, and two pieces of gold coin called Guineas, of the goods and chattels of the said Thomas Smith, AND John Knowles, in the dwelling-house of the said Thomas Smith AND John Knowles, then and there being, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away.

THE prosecutors Thomas Smith and John Knowles were in partnership, and lived next door to each other. The two houses had formerly been one house only, but had been divided for the purpose of accommodating the respective families of each partner, and were now perfectly distinct and separated from each other, there being no communication from the one to the other without going into the street. The house-keeping, servants' wages, &c. were paid by each partner respectively; but the rent and taxes of both the houses were paid jointly out of the partnership-fund. The prisoner was servant to the prosecutor Smith, and in his house the burglary was committed.

It was objected, that although these two houses were the joint property of both the partners, yet they were the separate and respective mansions of each, and therefore the burglary, as proved in the present case, ought to have been laid as committed in the house of Smith only.

THE COURT Conceived this objection to be well founded, and therefore the Jury were directed to acquit the prisoner of the capital part of the offence; and they accordingly found her guilty of the simple larceny only (a).

(a) At the Old Bailey, in January Session 1796, before MR. BARON THOMPSON, George Parminter was tried for stealing in the dwelling-house of James Moreland. It appeared that Moreland and one Gutteridge were copartners, that Moreland was the lessee of the whole premises, and paid

CASE CCXLI.

Two adjoinbelonging to two partners,

ing houses,

rent and taxes the joint fund, are paid from may still be the respective each partner, if there be no communica

tion from one to the other

but through

the outer

doors to the
street.
S. C. 2 East,

504.

1790.

all the rent and taxes for the same; that Gutteridge had an apartment in the house, and allowed Moreland a certain sum for board and lodging, JONES'S CASE. and also a certain proportion of the rent and taxes for the shop and warehouses. The felony was committed in the shop. It was contended that this gave to Gutteridge a joint possession of the shop and warehouses, and that it should have been so laid in the indictment, and on this objection the point was saved; but THE JUDGES were of opinion that the indictment was right, and the prisoner was transported.

CASE CCXLII.

Two indict

ments for the

same offence,

the other for

THE KING against MARY DORAN.

AT the September Session 1790, at Hicks's Hall, for the county of Middlesex, the managers of the Westminster Inone for the surance Office preferred two indictments at the same time felony, under a statute, and against one Mary Doran; the one for a FELONY at the common the misdemea law, and under the 9 Geo. I. c. 22. for setting fire to and burning the house of Daniel Mathews, in Little Russellstreet, Covent-Garden; and the other for a MISDEMEANOUR, charging, that she being possessed of the said house, as tenant for years to Daniel Mathews, did set fire to a certain room on the second floor in the said house, with intent to burn the houses contiguous and adjoining thereto.

nour at common law, ought not to be preferred

or found at the same time.

THE GRAND JURY found both these indictments to be true bills; and the indictment for the felony was transmitted as usual, from Hicks's Hall to the Old Bailey, to be tried; but when the prisoner was put to the bar, the Counsel for the Crown, perceiving from the depositions which were taken before the Magistrate, that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the charge of felony, stated to the Court, that as there was another indictment found against the prisoner for the misdemeanour, he should, under these circumstances, decline the prosecution for the capital offence.

EYRE, Chief Baron, expressed a strong disapprobation of the practice of preferring different indictments at the same time, on the same case, for the felony and the misdemeanour; and desired that notice might be sent to the Clerk of the Indictments at Hicks's Hall to prevent it in future. The Grand Jury cannot with propriety find two indictments for the same

offence at the same time, and the continuance of the practice may produce many inconveniences.

1790.

DORAN'S
CASE.

THE KING against JOHN SHEPHERD.

CASE CCXLIII.

AT the Old Bailey in October Session 1790, John Shepherd The act of was indicted before MR. BARON HOTHAM, present MR. JUSTICE tle, to make it HEATH, on the statute 9 Geo. I. c. 22. for that he, on the a capital offence within 18th September, a bay gelding, the property of Richard the meaning of Bond, feloniously, unlawfully, wilfully and maliciously did maim, by cutting the tongue of the aforesaid gelding three inches in length, against the form of the statute.

the 9 Geo. I. proceed from

c. 22. must

a malicious motive to

owner. (a).

THE prosecutor, Richard Bond, a farmer at South Mimms, wards the in the county of Middlesex, was possessed of the bay gelding S. C. 2 East, mentioned in the indictment, which was kept at grass in a 1073. meadow adjoining to the farm-yard. On the 19th September the animal was found lying in the meadow with its tongue hanging quite out of its mouth, and one part of it, which was quite dead, very nearly severed from the other (b). The prisoner was servant to the prosecutor, and had solicited him very earnestly to let him have another of the horses, called Boxer, to drive in the team instead of this gelding, which, at the time the mischief was done, was employed under the direction of the prisoner in carrying dung. The prisoner was seen holding the gelding by the tongue with one hand, while he beat him violently over the head with the but-end of a

(a) Vide the same point, Pearce's Case at Gloucester Assize 1789, before MR. JUSTICE HEATH. Ante, page 527. Case 237. And the same point was also decided by MR. JUSTICE HEATH in the Case of John Kean, Old-Bailey October Session 1789.

(b) To bring the offence within this Act it is not necessary that the animal should die in consequence of the maiming; for if it be proved that the prisoner, from malice to the owner, drive a nail into the frog of his horse's foot, so as to render the horse useless to the owner, yet it is a capital offence within the statute though the injury was not permanent, and the horse likely to recover; for the words of the statute are, "shall maliciously kill, maim or wound, &c." and the word wound appears to be used as contradistinguishing from a permanent injury such as maiming.Heywood's Case, Coventry Summer Assizes 1801, before MR. JUSTICE ROOKE. 2 East, P. C. 1076.

CASE

1790. whip which he held in the other; but there was no other evidence whatever that the prisoner had any malice against his SHEPHERD's master, except only that upon being remonstrated with on the barbarity of his conduct, he had declared, in the heat of his passion, that he would do the other horse an injury if his master did not let him have Boxer to go in the team; neither did the immediate cause of his resentment against the gelding appear.

THE COURT left it with the Jury to consider whether, under the circumstances of this case, the prisoner's conduct had been actuated by any motives of personal revenge against his master? or, Whether the brutality of his conduct had not proceeded from some sudden passion against the gelding itself, excited perhaps by some act of viciousness, or by its untractable disposition? (a) for that unless they were of opinion that it was done from a malicious motive against the owner of the gelding, however savage and cruel his conduct might appear, he could not legally be found guilty under

this statute.

THE prisoner was acquitted.

(a) In a Case on this statute before MR. JUSTICE HEATH, it appeared that the prisoner had cut the tendons of the hinder legs of several sheep that had from time to time broke over into his inclosure, and it was holden not to be a case within the statute; for this was evidently resentment against the particular animals, and not from any personal malice against the owner. But it was agreed by the JUDGES in Daniel Ranger's Case, Surry Summer Assizes 1798, before BULLER, J. that it is not necessary in these cases for the prosecutor to prove a previous existing malice against the owner. 2 East's P. C. 1073, 1074.

CASE CCXLIV.

der for the de

THE KING against JOHN CLINCH.

A forged or At the Old Bailey in January Session 1791, John Clinch livery of goods was indicted before MR. BARON PERRYN, present MR. BAis not within RON THOMPSON, upon the statute of 7 Geo. II. c. 22. for

the 7 Geo. II.

c. 22. unless it forging an order for the delivery of goods.

be directed to

the person who holds the goods; and it must appear in an indictment for this offence that the person whose name is charged to be forged, had an authority to make such an order, as the forged order purports to be. S. C. 2 East, 958.