the year 1800, it was held that this case was determined by the 1800. case of Rex v. Smith. (a) REX v. THOMAS WARDLE. 1800. for robbery. THE prisoner was tried before Mr. JUSTICE CHAMBRE, at Derby An indictment Lent assizes, in the year 1800, upon an indictment charging him stated, that it with robbing one George Hill in an open field near the highway. The prisoner was found guilty of the robbery, but not near the highway. CHAMBRE J. at the trial had no doubt of the prisoner's being liable to a capital sentence under the 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 9., which takes away clergy from " every person that shall rob any other person;" but it having been decided at the Old Bailey, in the case of Rexv. Oatley, Leach, C. C. 53., that upon an indictment for a highway robbery, evidence of a robbery in a house would not support the capital part of the charge, he thought it safest to respite the sentence. For although the learned judge was of opinion that the decision in the case, if truly reported, had arisen from not adverting to the statute of William and Mary, still, as it might be founded on reasons of which he was not aware, thought it right to reserve the point. he On the first day of Easter term, 1800, present ALL THE JUDGES (except BULLER J.), it was held that the conviction was right; that it was felony without benefit of clergy, being a robbery under the 3 & 4 W. & M. c.9., and that the circumstance of being in a field near the highway was immaterial. (b) (a) Supra, 5. (b) Rex v. PYE, MS. C. C. R. The prisoner was convicted before Mr. BARON THOMSON at the Warwick Lent assizes, in the year 1790, upon an indictment which charged him with robbing Robert Fernyough, in the dwellinghouse of Aaron Wilday. The fact was committed in a house, but it did not appear who was the occupier of it. THOMSON B. respited the sentence that the opinion of the judges might be taken upon the propriety of the conviction. At a meeting of ALL THE JUDGES, in the following Easter term, 1790, they all held the conviction proper. The circumstance of the fact being committed in a house (it not appearing who was the occupier of it) was held to be immaterial. was in a field held that the the 3 & 4 W. away clergy, S. C., 2 East. 1800. Breaking down the head REX v. THOMAS ROSS. THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON CHAMBRE, at the or mound of a Lent assizes for the county of Leicester, in the year 1800, upon fish-pond is not an indictment on the statute 9 G. 1. c. 22., for unlawfully, maa felony within the 9 G.1.c.22. liciously, and feloniously breaking down the head and mound of two fishponds in a place called Bosworth Park, belonging to Sir Wolston Dixie, Baronet, whereby the fish therein were lost and destroyed. if the only object in so steal the fish. It was proved, that a part of the head or mound of one of 9 G.1. c. 22. the ponds had been cut down to a considerable depth, by two applies only to persons, of whom the prisoner was one, so as to leave but little cases of wanwater in the pond. ton and mali cious mischief. S. C., 2 East. P. C. 1067. The fish were gone; but it appeared to have been the object of the offenders to steal the fish, and not to let them escape through the breach in the mound. The weeds were much trodden down in the pond, manifestly in searching for the fish, and the prisoner and another person had been seen with sacks, which there was every reason to believe were filled with the fish. There was no evidence showing that any of the fish had escaped through the cut, or that it was the occasion of their loss or destruction, any otherwise than by rendering it more easy to take them, when the greatest part of the water was let off. The words of the statute are, "That if any persons shall unlawfully and maliciously break down the head or mound of any Also in REX v. SUSANNAH JOHNSTONE (wife of Jos. Johnstone), MS. C. C. R. The prisoner was tried before Mr.JUSTICE ASHHURST, at Warwick Lent assizes, in the year 1793, and found guilty of robbing Richard Dicken of six guineas and a half, in the dwelling-house of Jos. Johnstone, at Birmingham. ASHHURST J. respited the prisoner to take the opinion of the JUDGES, whether (as the indictment was laid for a robbery in the dwelling-house of Jos. Johnstone, and as there was no evidence what the Christian name was of the person who kept the house), the prisoner was well convicted. At a meeting of ALL THE JUDGES in the following Easter term, they were of opinion that the gist of the indictment was robbery, that it being laid in a dwelling-house was an immaterial circumstance, and that the prisoner was properly convicted. Lord HALE says, it may be laid in or near the highway, because it is not the substance of the indictment. 1 Hale, 555. fish-pond whereby the fish shall be lost or destroyed, every person so offending, being thereof lawfully convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony," &c. CHAMBRE B. was inclined to think, that though the prisoner might have been indicted for a misdemeanour under the statute of 5 G.3. c.14., the case proved did not support the indictment for a felony; conceiving that the statute 9 G. 1. c. 22. was meant to apply only to cases of malicious mischief, and where the breaking of the mound was the immediate cause of the loss and destruction of the fish, and not merely auxiliary to the destruction of them by other means; but not recollecting any case upon the construction of the clause, he left the evidence of the facts to the jury, who found the prisoner guilty; the learned JUDGE respited the judgment in order to take the opinion of THE JUDGES upon the question of law. This case was adjourned over from the first day of Easter to the first day of Trinity term, 1800, when THE JUDGES (all present except Mr. JUSTICE BULLER, who died on the 4th of June, and whose place had not been filled up,) were of opinion that this was not an offence within the 9 G. 1. c.22.; and if it were, that the statute 5 G. 3. c. 14. had virtually repealed it, as to this offence, and therefore that the conviction was wrong. THE JUDGES also thought the act 9 G. 1. c.22. (a) applied only to cases of wanton or malicious mischief in cutting the mound or head, and not to cases where it was used as the means of stealing the fish. (a) By 4 G. 4. c. 54. the capital punishment under 9 G. 1. c. 22. is repealed, and the offenders, their procurers, counsellors, aiders, and abettors, subjected to seven years' transportation, or imprisonment only, or imprisonment and hard labour in gaol or house of correction for not exceeding three years. 1800. Ross's Case. 1800. If a person employed in the post-office secretes a letter containing a draft, it is REX v. BENJAMIN POOLEY. THE prisoner was indicted on the statute 7 G. 3. c.50. s. 1. (a), and tried before Mr. JUSTICE CHAMBRE, at the Old Bailey sessions, in September, 1800. One count of the indictment charged the prisoner with felonot an offence niously secreting a letter containing a draft for payment of money, which came to his hands and possession in his employ within the 7 G.5. c. 50. s. 1., if the draft (from not being duly stamped) was not available. S. C. 2 Leach, C. C. 887. 4th edit. 3 B. & P. 311. (a) By which it is enacted, That if any deputy, clerk, agent, letter-carrier, post-boy, or rider, or any other officer or person whatsoever, employed, or to be hereafter employed, in receiving, stamping, sorting, charging, carrying, conveying, or delivering letters or packets, or any other business relating to the post-office, shall, from and after the first day of November, one thousand seven hundred and sixty-seven, secrete, embezzle, or destroy any letter or letters, packet or packets, bag or mail of letters, which he, she, or they shall and may be respectively intrusted with, or which shall come to his, her, or their hands or possession containing any bank note, bank-post bill, bill of exchange, Exchequer bill, South Sea or East India bond, dividend warrant of the Bank, South Sea, East India, or any other company, society, or corporation, navy or victualling or transport bill, ordnance debenture, seaman's ticket, state-lottery ticket or certificate, bank receipt for payment on any loan, note of assignment of stock in the funds, letter of attorney for receiving annuities or dividends, or for selling stock in the funds or belonging to any company, society, or corporation, American provincial bill of credit, goldsmiths' or bankers' letter of credit, or note for or relating to the payment of money, or other bond or warrant, draft, bill, or promissory note whatsoever for the payment of money; or shall steal or take out of any letter or packet that shall come to his, her, or their hands or possession any such bank note, bank-post bill, bill of exchange, Exchequer bill, South Sea or East India bond, dividend warrant of the Bank, South Sea, East India, or any other company, society, or corporation, navy or victualling or transport bill, ordnance debenture, seaman's ticket, state-lottery ticket or certificate, Bank receipt for the payment of any loan, note or assignment of stock in the funds, letter of attorney for receiving annuities on dividends, or for selling stock in the funds, or belonging to any company, society, or corporation, American provincial bill of credit, goldsmiths' or bankers' letter of credit or note for or relating to the payment of money, or other bond or warrant, draft, bill, or promissory note whatsoever, for the payment of money; every such offender or offenders, being thereof convicted in due form of law, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death as a felon, without benefit of clergy. ment of a sorter of letters brought by the post to the general post office in London. Another count charged him with stealing the draft out of a letter which came to his hands in like manner. Both the counts alleged the draft to be in force at the time of the felony, and the money secured thereby to be unsatisfied. There were other counts, but not materially different in respect of the question reserved. The draft described in the indictment was made by David Thomson, directed to his bankers in London, requiring them to pay Archibald Thomson, or bearer, 2001. It was dated at London, but drawn at Teston, near Maidstone, where the drawer resided, upwards of twenty miles from London, and when produced in evidence appeared to be upon unstamped paper. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but the sentence was respited in order to take the opinion of THE JUDGES, whether the draft, under the circumstances, could be received in evidence, and was sufficient to support the indictment. In the following Michaelmas term, 1800, this case was argued before all THE JUDGES in the EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, by ABBOTT for the Crown, and KNOWLYS for the prisoner, when THE JUDGES were all of opinion that the conviction was wrong; that the draft not being stamped was of no value, nor in any way available, and, therefore, it was not a bill or a draft within the act. 1800. POOLEY'SCase. REX v. JOHN SCOTT. 1801. son carried on THE HE prisoner was tried before Mr. JUSTICE CHAMBRE, at the A father and summer assizes for the county of Northumberland, in the year business as 1800, upon an indictment, charging him with stealing forty-nine farmers: the sheep, the property of Simon Dodd the elder, Simon Dodd the testate, after younger, John Dodd, Gilbert Dodd, Nicholas Dodd, Isabella Dodd, Jane Dodd, Mary Dodd, and Hannah Dodd. son died in which the father continued the business for, the joint benefit of himself and the sons next of kin : some of the sheep were stolen, and were laid to be the property of the father and the sons next of kin, and all the judges held it right. S. C. 2 East. P.C.655. |