1822. HILL'S Case. that the silence of this section of the statute, as to the loom, frame or any part thereof, was probably an omission; especially as in the second section of the same act, where the silk trade is spoken of, though "frame or loom" is not mentioned; yet the words used might perhaps include the frame, for that section speaks of the destruction of any "tools, tackle, or utensils." And he observed also, that in the third section of the statute, which applied to the cotton trade, the words "tools, tackle, or utensils" are again used. The prisoners pleaded guilty by the advice of their counsel, the learned JUDGE assuring them that he would take the opinion of THE JUDGES upon the objection, and recommend the prisoners for a free pardon, in case THE JUDGES should hold his opinion to be correct; and he did not therefore pass the sentence of death. In Easter term 1822, THE JUDGES held that the objection was well founded. (a) 1822. Sending a threatening letter within 27 G. 2. c. 15. To bring the offence within this statute, the letter must be sent to the person threatened, and it must be so THE REX v. RICHARD PADDLE. HE prisoner was tried before Mr. SERJEANT FIRTH, at the spring assizes for the county of Suffolk, on a charge of sending a threatening letter, within the statute 27 G.2. c. 15. "Mr. The first count of the indictment charged the prisoner with having, knowingly, unlawfully, wickedly, and feloniously, sent a certain letter, without any name subscribed thereto, to one William Kirby, by the name of William Kurbay Clargyman Barham Suffolk, the tenor of which said letter was as follows. Kurbay We take the liberty of Riten the few lines to you and we hope that you will Explain them a proper manner to the Jantlemen as we may call them But not so that is conscerning the Poor Labourn meen in this parish been so very much Robd deliver it to B., is a sending to B. if the letter be delivered by Å. to B. stated in the indictment. But it seems that sending the letter to A. in order that he may (a) Vide Rex v. Tacey, ante, 452. and In Posed upon in their Laborn and if they go on of droping the wages, they may depend they will meet with som bad misforten for something we must Do for we cannot Bear it no longer there is one two that make it there comon Pratic to go about the Parish teach the others not to give onlly So and So, and they must Do it and as long as we will stand it thay will intairly star us to Dead ould Brook is the worst rogue of all Mr. Rodwell is nearley as bad and they do not chouse to mend we intend to make them a present of a fair brond and need not think that this promis will fael for it will not thats for ould Brook may be as shure of having his Stack yard Set on fair as shure as ever he is a rogue and that we are shure of and so shall that ould serpant at Claydon hall. William Kurbay, Clargyman, Barham, Suffolk." To the great damage and terror of the said William Kirby against the statute, &c. The second count charged the prisoner with having knowingly, &c., sent a certain letter without any name subscribed thereto to William Kirby, threatening to burn the house of one John Meadows Rodwell; (and it set forth the same letter) to the great damage and terror of the said John Meadows Rodwell against the statute, &c. The third count charged the prisoner with having sent the same letter to Mr. Kirby, threatening to burn the stacks of hay, corn, and grain of one Robert Brook, to the great damage and terror of the said Robert Brook, against the statute, &c. It was proved that the letter was written by the prisoner, and that Mr. Kirby received it by the post on the 6th of December, 1821; and that it was communicated very soon afterwards to Mr. Rodwell and Mr. Brook. Mr. Brook proved that he had, in the beginning of December 1821, five or six stacks of wheat, barley, and beans in his stack yard, and that on reading the letter in question he was much alarmed and terrified. The prisoner's counsel objected that the statute on which the indictment was framed, recites, in the preamble, the statute 9 G. 1. c. 22. of which it meant to extend the provisions; and insisted from the last-mentioned statute connected with that of the 27th G.2. that it was indispensably necessary that the indictment should charge the prisoner with sending the threatening letter to the party threatened; whereas it was stated in the indictment and appeared upon the evidence, that the letter was not so sent, but 1822. PADDLE'S Case. 1822. PADDLE'S was sent to a third party, a stranger; and that Mr. Kirby might have destroyed the letter, without the party threatened knowing any thing of it. The learned SERJEANT expressed his opinion, that the charge of sending the letter to one William Kirby, &c., directed to the said William Kirby, was merely an allegation of a collateral fact which was proved by the evidence, but which he thought needed not to have been alleged. And he thought the indictment sufficient, inasmuch as it followed the words of the statute; which makes the bare sending of a threatening letter, the offence meant to be provided against: and as neither the 9th G. 1. nor 27th G. 2. have the words," to any of his Majesty's subjects," in the enacting clause respectively; he thought that the letter (according strictly, as he considered it, with the words, spirit, and meaning of the 27th G. 2.), need not be directed to any body at all, nor be sent to the party threatened. It seemed to him that, by a different construction, this wholesome statute might easily be evaded by sending a letter to an inmate in the house of the party threatened, or to a stranger; and that it was sufficient, if, by the act of the prisoners, the letter came into the possession of the party threatened, and the party was thereby put in fear, alarm, and apprehension. The learned SERJEANT therefore overruled the objection; but as he considered this a new case, and as the prisoner's counsel expressed great confidence in the validity of the objection, he thought fit to respite the judgment, and remanded the prisoner until the following assizes. This case was considered by THE JUDGES in Easter term 1822, and they held that the sending the letter to Kirby, as Kirby was not threatened, was not within the statute; and upon that account the judgment was arrested; but they intimated, that if Kirby had delivered it to Rodwell or Brook, and a jury should think that the prisoner intended he should so deliver it, this would be a sending by the prisoner to Rodwell or Brook, and would support a charge to that effect. 1822. REX v. JOSEPH JACKSON. THE prisoner was convicted before Mr. JUSTICE BAYLEY, at the Having carnal spring assizes at Lancaster in the year 1822, for a burglary with an intent to commit a rape upon a married woman. knowledge of a married woman under circumstances pose it is her The Held, by a majority of the judges, not to amount to a rape. It appeared in evidence that the prisoner went into the room, which induce and got into the woman's bed as if he had been her husband; her to supthat he was in the act of copulation when she made the disco- husband. very, and immediately, and before completion, he desisted. jury found that he entered the house with intent to pass for her husband, and to have connection with her if she did not discover the mistake, but not with the intention of forcing her if she made that discovery. The learned JUDGE thought it right to reserve the question for the consideration of THE JUDGES, whether the connection with the woman, whilst she was under that mistake, would have amounted to a rape, and he accordingly respited the sentence. The case was considered by THE JUDGES in Trinity term 1822, when four JUDGES thought, that the having carnal knowledge of a woman whilst she was under the belief of its being her husband would be a rape, but the other eight JUDGES thought that it would not; and DALLAS C. J. pointed out forcibly the difference between compelling a woman against her will, when the abhorrence which would naturally arise in her mind was called into action, and beguiling her into consent and co-operation; but several of the eight JUDGES intimated, that if the case should occur again, they would advise the jury to find a special verdict. 1822. ment for lar ceny, if the described as a REX v. FANNY CHARD. In an indict- THE prisoner was convicted before Mr. JUSTICE BAYLEY, at the Lancaster spring assizes in the year 1822, of a simple larceny in thing stolen be stealing what was described to be a bank post bill, made for the bank post-bill, payment of one hundred pounds. It was not set out in the inand be not set dictment (a); and an objection was taken in arrest of judgment, out, the court that it did not appear to be such an instrument as was within 2G.2. c. 25., and that at the time this statute passed it was not known what a bank bill was. post cannot take judicial notice that it is a promissory note; or that it is such an instruunder as, ment the statute 2 G. 2. c. 25., may be the subject of lar ceny, though it be described as made for the payment of money. The learned JUDGE reserved the point for the consideration of THE JUDGES. The case was considered by THE JUDGES in Trinity term, 1822, when it appeared that bank post bills were not in use until two years after the statute 2 G. 2. c. 25. had passed. And the JUDGES were of opinion that they could not take notice that, what is now called a bank post bill, fell within any of the descriptions in that statute; and also that they could not say, as the instrument was not set out, what a bank post bill was: and further, that as the instrument was not what, at the time the statute passed, would properly be called a bill, the prisoner should have been acquitted. A pardon was therefore recommended. The jurors, &c. that Fanny Chard, late &c. in &c. on &c. with force and arms at the parish, &c. feloniously did steal, take, and carry away one bank post bill made for the payment of the sum of one hundred pounds of lawful money of Great Britain, and of the value of one hundred pounds, then and there being found, and then and there being the property of Samuel Scotson, and the money payable upon and secured by the said bank post bill then and there remaining due and unsatisfied, against the form, &c. and against the peace, &c. And the jurors, &c. that the said Fanny Chard, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, with force and arms at, &c. feloniously did steal, take, and carry away one other bank post bill made for the payment of the sum of one hundred pounds of like lawful money, and of the value of one hundred pounds, then and there being found, and then and there being the property of Adolphus Perie, and the money payable upon and secured by the said lastmentioned bank post bill then and there remaining due and unsatisfied, against the form, &c. and against the peace, &c. |