the money; when the prisoner, with a vulgar expression, and 1820. FULLER'S Case. 1820. FULLER'S Case. bring him to a public house in Little George Street, where there was more light. The prosecutor went out, and met the prisoner opposite his master's house, and said to him, "My friend is not come, you had better go away." The prisoner said, “No; I will be damned if I go without the money." The prosecutor told him he possibly might be able to get it at the public house. The prosecutor then went into the public house, and the prisoner waited at the door; when the prosecutor came out, he told the prisoner he had got four shillings. The prisoner said, Damn his eyes if he would not have ten shillings; and on the prosecutor's saying, he only asked for four, the prisoner said, No, he did not; but he would have ten. The prosecutor said he had two halfcrowns, and gave them to the prisoner, and told him, if he would come up in the morning he should have five shillings more, the prisoner said, "Shall I?" The prosecutor told him he should. The officer and watchman as had been agreed, then came up and secured the prisoner, and took the marked money from his hand. As the prisoner was going to the watch house, he said to the prosecutor, "Damn you, you are after the whole battalion; I will bring them to prove what you are." Upon some questions put to the prosecutor from the Court, he answered that he gave the last five shillings on purpose to detect the prisoner, as he was informed he could not swear to the other money, and that it would be useless to proceed against him; he also stated, that he parted with it, in order that he might prosecute the prisoner for the former money, as he was accused of a thing he knew he was innocent of, and that he had parted with the money the first time from the threats of the prisoner. For the prisoner several soldiers of the guards were called, who swore that the prosecutor had, upon several occasions, to each of them, made propositions of the most abominable nature in terms the most disgusting. ! The prosecutor being further examined, protested, in the most solemn manner, that there was not any foundation for any of these assertions, or for a declaration of the prisoner that he had been admitted into the house of the master of the prosecutor, and that he had then made indecent attempts upon his person. } The jury found the prisoner guilty; but with the concurrence, and by the advice of Mr. JUSTICE BAYLEY, the learned JUDGE directed the judgment to be respited, until he could submit the case for the consideration of THE JUDGES. In Hilary term, 1820, THE JUDGES met. They were of opinion, that this taking did not amount to robbery, and the prisoner was recommended for a limited pardon. (a) 1820. FULLER'S REX v. JOHN BELSTEAD. 1820. ready furnish must be de THE HE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. JUSTICE In larceny the RICHARDSON, at the Old Bailey sessions, February 1820, of goods of a breaking and entering the dwelling-house of James Anderson ed lodging in the day-time (the said James Anderson and others being therein), and stealing therein certain bed-curtains, valences, sheets, pillows, pillow-cases, pictures, and looking-glasses, the property of the said James Anderson The breaking and stealing were clearly proved, but it appeared that James Anderson occupied part of the dwelling-house himself, and let out the rest in ready-furnished lodgings; and that the property stolen was the furniture, of a room let by Anderson to one Thomas Yomen furnished, at half a crown a week, and that a week was running at the time of the robbery. Yomen usually left the key with Anderson's wife to make his bed, &c., and had it from her when he wanted it. The door was opened by the prisoner by means of a false key. The learned JUDGE doubted whether Anderson had a sufficient possession of this furniture, to warrant the laying of the property. in him, and therefore submitted this point for the consideration of THE JUDGES. In Easter term, 1820, THE JUDGES met, and considered this case. They were of opinion that the goods should have been described as Yomen's, for Anderson was not entitled to the possession, and could not have maintained trespass. They held the conviction wrong. (b) (a) Vide Rex v. Donelly, 2 East, P. C. 715. S. C. 1 Leach, C. C. 193. Hickman's Case, 2 East, P. C. 728. S. C. 1 Leach, C. C. 278. Reave's Case, 2 East, P. C. 734. Rex v. Cannon, ante, 146. Rex v.. Egerton, ante, 375. Elmstead's Case, MS. C. C. R. 1802. Gordon v. (b) 2 East, P. C. c. 16. s. 26. Ward v. Macauley, 4 T.R. 489. Harper, 7 T.R. 9. Rex v. Brunswick, Ryan & Moody's C. C. R. Trin. T. 1824. scribed as the lodger's goods, not as the goods of the original owners. 1820. REX v. THOMAS FOSTER. Indictment for THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON GARROW at the committing an Maidstone Lent assizes in the year 1820, for committing an unnatural crime on one John Whyneard. unnatural of fence on one John Why neard. Convic The person on whom this crime was convicted, being called tion held right, as a witness, said that his name was spelt Winyard, but it was although it was proved the name was Winyard, aud pronounced Winnyard. pronounced Winnyard. The prisoner was convicted, and received sentence of death; but execution was respited, in order that the opinion of THE JUDGES might be taken on the objection, that the name of the witness was mis-spelt. In Easter term, 1820, THE JUDGES took this case into consideration, and held the conviction right. 1820. Larceny. The goods in a dissenting chapel vested in trustees, cannot be de scribed as the goods of a servant who has merely the custody of the chapel and things in it, to clean and keep in order, though he has REX v. THOMAS HUTCHINSON AND JOSEPH THE prisoners were tried, before Mr. JUSTICE RICHARDSON, at the Lent assizes for the county of Stafford, in the year 1820; and were convicted: Hutchinson of stealing, and the prisoner Boffey of receiving, secreting, &c., a quantity of brass, which in the first count was laid to be the property of Thomas Penn and twenty other persons therein named, and in the second count to be the property of Samuel Evans. The property stolen formed the brass chandelier and sconces (not fixed to the freehold) of a chapel of Protestant dissenters, and the persons named in the first count were the trustees of the chapel; but the prosecutors were not prepared to prove the trust chapel, and no deed whereby they were appointed, nor that all of them had acted in the trust or management, some of them residing at a distance. the key of the other person but the mi nister has another key. It appeared by the evidence of Samuel Evans, in whom the property was laid in the second count, that he was servant to the managers, and had a salary of five pounds a year, and that he for many years had had the care of the chapel and of the things in it, to clean and keep in order; that he kept the keys, and that no person except himself had the key of the chapel; but the minister had a key of the vestry, through which he could enter the chapel. The trustees had no key. It appeared that Samuel Evans received his orders, sometimes from the trustees, and sometimes from the minister, and that no one resided in the chapel. The learned JUDGE thought this evidence insufficient; but being pressed not to stop the trial, and the case being a flagrant one, he allowed a verdict to be taken, but respited the judgment, and reserved the case for the consideration of THE Judges. In Easter term, 1820, THE JUDGES met. They held the property of the goods taken, could not be considered as belonging to Evans; and that the conviction was wrong. (a) 1820. HUTCHINSON'S Case. REX v. ROBSON, GILL, FEWSTER, AND NICHOLSON. 1820. If there is a THE find a They of John Younger twenty notes for one guinea each. a (a) Vide 2 East, P. C. 652. Rex v. Woodward, ib. 653. Rex v. Deakin, ibid. Rex v. Remnant, ante, 136. plan to cheat a man of his property under colour of a bet, and he parts with the pos session only to deposit as a stake with one of the confe derates. The |