Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the money; when the prisoner, with a vulgar expression, and
an oath, said, "If you don't give me the money I will go
in to your master and swear you wanted to commit an unna-
tural crime." The prosecutor, anxious not to disturb the
family, and in the expectation that he might secure the pri-
soner at some future time, gave him a 17. note and ten shil-
lings in silver, with which the prisoner departed. The pro-
secutor stated the circumstances to his master, who deter-
mined if the prisoner should apply again, to take measures for
his apprehension. On the day on which the prisoner was ap-
prehended, he (as before) came to the house soon after the
family had dined, and rang the bell at the street door, and on the
prosecutor's going into the area, the prisoner said, "Come up,
I want to speak to you." The prosecutor went up to the pri-
soner at the street door; the prisoner said, "I want four shil-
lings." The prosecutor said, "Oh! do you?" To which the
prisoner replied, "Yes; and four shillings I must have, and
damn me if I don't pay you. When I get my arrears, I will
pay you all." The prosecutor said, "The last time you was
here you had 17. 10s., and you stripped me of all my money;
but if you will go with me to Orchard Street, I have a friend
who will lend me the money." The prisoner said he would
go, and that he would not leave the prosecutor till he got it. The
prosecutor took the prisoner to Orchard Street, to a constable's;
the constable not being at home, the prosecutor left directions for
him to come to his master's house. The prisoner waited until
the prosecutor came out; and on his being told by the prose-
cutor that his friend was not at home, the prisoner said he would
go
home with him, and would not leave him until he had got
the money; and he followed the prosecutor to the door of his
master's house. The prosecutor told the prisoner, he had better
meet him in St. Margaret's church-yard; and if his friend did
not come he would get some money some where else. The
prisoner said he would not leave him, and went up to the door.
On the prosecutor's ringing the bell, the prisoner said, “ Will
you meet me?" The prosecutor replied that he would; the pri-
soner then went away. At about eight o'clock in the evening
the constable came; the prosecutor told him what had passed,
and the appointment he had made, when it was agreed between
them that the prosecutor should not give the money, which
he had marked, to the prisoner in the church-yard, but should

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.

[ocr errors]

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
Case.

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
BOFFEY.

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
HE prisoners were tried and convicted before Mr. JUSTICE Larceny.
BAYLEY, at the Lent assizes for the town and county of New-
castle-upon-Tyne, in the year 1820, of stealing from the person

find a

They

of John Younger twenty notes for one guinea each.
The facts were as follows. Robson, by pretending to
sixpence in a fair, decoyed Younger to a public-house.
were then joined by the three other prisoners, and after a little
time, Gill, who pretended to be flush of money, began to play
with Fewster, at guessing at a halfpenny Fewster hid under

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
taking by such
confederates
is felonious.

« AnteriorContinuar »