1806. DAVIS and passing a place called Thurland's passage, which was about two hundred yards from Mills's shop, about one hundred and fifty HALL'S Case. from the shop of Roe; and about twelve yards from the Sun Inn, Davis stepped from the carriage road to the causeway, and there spoke to a man who was standing upon the causeway, and to whom he came quite close, putting his face close to him. This man, who afterwards turned out to be the prisoner Hall, then joined Davis, and passed on, together with Davis and Roe, to the Sun Inn, and entered the yard, when Kilburn the constable seized Davis, and instantly handed him over to the custody of Mills, in order to pursue Hall, who ran up the yard towards the three-stalled stable, and was apprehended by Kilburn, just as he got to the stable door. Kilburn lost sight of him for a moment when he turned a corner almost close to the stable door which was then open. Under the horse which was furthest from the stable door was found a handkerchief wrapped up as a bundle, and it was proved that a person from the door-way might have thrown it over the sides of the stalls to the place in which it was found. The bundle was secured and produced in court. It contained Stourbridge and Bromsgrove notes of five guineas and ten pounds, to the amount of two hundred and eighty-six pounds, all of the same plate, being printed checks filled up with the dates, sums, and signatures of the firm and entering clerks, in the same manner as the note in question. The whole were proved to be forged; as well as the two notes uttered at Nottingham, and several others uttered by Davis at different places in his way from Birmingham to Nottingham.. It appeared that the prisoners had affected ignorance of each other, but their intercourse at Birmingham and at the inn at Nottingham was clearly proved. The time which elapsed between Davis's uttering the forged note at Roe's shop, and his being joined by Hall at Thurland's passage, was about fifteen or twenty minutes. It further appeared, that on the 17th of November the office of a Birmingham stage coach had been broken open, and a parcel of blank checks, which had been sent from London directed to the Bromsgrove and Stourbridge Bank, had been unpacked, and many blank checks of the same kind with those produced had been stolen. 1806. DAVIS and Upon this evidence, the only doubt being as to Hall's concurrence in the act of uttering the forged note in question, the learned JUDGE left it to the jury to consider, whether from the HALL's Case. circumstances stated they were satisfied, not only that the prisoners came with the concerted purpose of putting off these notes, but that Hall was, at the time of the uttering of the note in question, so disposed, and so near at hand, as to be willing and ready to assist in the putting it off, or to favor Davis's escape in case of detection. The jury found both the prisoners guilty: upon which a question was reserved for the opinion of THE JUDGES; namely, whether this evidence was sufficient to affect Hall as a principal in the uttering of the forged note in question. In Easter term, 28th of April, 1806, ALL THE JUDGES (except LORD ELLENBOROUGH) being present, the conviction was held wrong as to Hall, he not being to be considered as present aiding and abetting. (a) REX v. WILLIAM WILSON. 1806. THE ham. The prisoner was convicted: but the case was reserved for the opinion of the TWELVE JUDGES, upon the question whether the place broken into could be considered as the dwelling-house of George Hinchliffe. Burglary. When a ser vant has part of a house for his own occupation, and the rest is reserved by the proprietor for other purposes, the part reserved cannot be deemed of the servant's dwelling-house; and it will be the same if any other person has part of the house and the rest is reserved. part (a) See Rex v. Soares and others, ante, p. 25. Rex v. Else and another, East. T. 1808. post. 1806. WILSON'S George Hinchliffe was the governor of the workhouse at Birmingham, appointed by the guardians and overseers of the poor of one of the parishes, in whom certain funds are vested by act of parliament for the benefit of the poor. The workhouse consists of a large building in a court yard, surrounded with a wall; the entrance to the court is by a porter's gate; the building is divided into two wings or departments, the one being occupied by the poor people, the other by the governor and his family; and the part which the governor occupies is entirely detached from that which is occupied by the poor, except that their victuals are dressed in the same kitchen which he uses for his family; and he has a separate door to that part of the building which he occupies. The whole of the building, which is called the governor's house, consists of two parlours and a sitting room below, three bed-chambers and three large store rooms above, and four attics. One of the parlours below, which is betwixt the two other rooms on the same floor, is appropriated to the business of the trust, and is called the office, or clerk's room, of which, the clerk keeps one key, the governor keeping another, to secure the effects in case of fire, and his servant cleans and takes care of this room; and those on each side are entirely in his occupation. The prisoner, probably with others, had gotten over the outward wall, thrown up the sash of this parlour or office window, and with a centre bit had cut two round holes in the window shutter, through which, by putting in his hand and arm, he had unhasped and let down the cross-bar on the inside; then entering the room, he had broken open the chest in which the trust property was kept, and stolen notes and money to the amount of between two and three hundred pounds. The governor held his appointment under a contract with the guardians and overseers of the poor, for seven years, and was paid by a salary, and by the occupation of the house by himself and family during that term: the guardians and overseers reserving to themselves the use of this room as an office, and the use of the three store-rooms as a deposit for the clothes and other effects of the poor of the workhouse. The governor is assessed for this house, with the exception of the office, store-rooms, and kitchen. At a meeting of ALL THE JUDGES, on the first day of Trinity term, 1806, the majority of them (MANSFIELD C. J. and HEATH and GROSE JS. seeming to dissent) were of opinion that this was not the dwelling-house of the governor; and therefore that the prisoner was improperly convicted of the burglary, but was subject to be convicted of the larceny. The prisoner was therefore to be recommended to the crown for a pardon, on condition of being transported for seven years. 1806. WILSON'S Case. CASE OF THE IRISH PEER. 1806. ought not to serve upon a grand jury unless he is a member of the House of Commons. LORD Headley, a peer of Ireland not in parliament, attended An Irish peer the assizes for the county of York, to serve on the grand jury. CHAMBRE J. recollecting that Lord Teignmouth had attended for the like purpose under the special commission in Surrey, for the trial of Despard and others, when it was thought most adviseable that he should not serve (but without expressly deciding whether he could or not), mentioned the instance to Lord Headley, and with his approbation his lordship's name was omitted to be called. And as instances of a similar kind may again occur, the learned JUDGE stated the circumstance, in order that the general sense of THE JUDGES upon the point might be taken. (a) On the first day of Trinity term, 1806, all the JUDGES (except HEATH J.) being present at LORD ELLENBOROUGH's chambers, this matter was mentioned, when it seemed to be agreed by all of them, that a British or Irish peer ought not to be on a grand or petit jury, except an Irish peer who is a member of the House of Commons, and who is, to all intents and purposes, a commoner. (b) (a) See the act of Union 39 & 40 G. 3. c.67., the fourth and last paragraphs of the fourth article. (b) Ibid. Dyer, 314. b. Fitz. N. B. 384. writ de non ponendis in assizis et juratis. 1806. master of a Prussian ves REX v. CORNELIUS VAN MUYEN. Larceny. The THE prisoner was tried before Mr. JUSTICE CHAMBRE, at the summer assizes for Dorsetshire, in the year 1806, upon an indictment for stealing linen, geneva, and other articles, in a vessel called the Paulina Maria, in the port of Weymouth, a port of entry and discharge, contrary to the statute. sel captured by a British ship and carried into the port of Weymouth held not to be guilty of lar The goods specified in the indictment composed part of the ceny in taking cargo of the Paulina Maria, a Prussian ship, of which the prigoods from the soner, a native of the United Provinces, but a subject of Prussia, vessel under the particular was master, and which had been captured by a British ship circumstances, called the Diana. there being no evidence that he took them for the purpose of converting them to his own private use. The first count of the indictment alleged the property of the goods to be in the owners of the Diana; the second count, in the master of the Diana; the third count, in the agents of the Diana; the fourth count, in one Saxon, who had been appointed the shipkeeper for the prize; and the fifth count, in the King. The PAULINA MARIA was taken under Prussian colours, on the 6th of October, 1805, betwixt which day and the 9th of October she was brought into Weymouth. She was taken on suspicion of being Dutch property. The Diana had letters of marque and reprizal granted to her on the 8th of October, but they were not against Prussian vessels. On the 8th of November, 1805, there was a decree in the Court of Admiralty for restitution; on the 6th of April, 1806, an embargo was laid on Prussian vessels; on the 14th of May following, His Majesty's proclamation issued for reprizals against Prussia; and on the 16th of July the court of Admiralty rescinded the decree of restitution of the 8th of November, pronounced the vessel and cargo at the time of the capture to have belonged to Prussian owners, and condemned them as prize to the king taken before the commencement of hostilities against Prussia. It appeared that the prisoner, who had lodgings in Weymouth, went sometimes on board the prize, and was seen there on the 10th or 11th of July. About nine of the crew and two Custom House officers were kept on board; the cargo was kept below the main hatches, which were locked up, and Saxton, who on the 10th |