The counsel for the prosecution then offered to give in evidence the several confessions of the two prisoners taken before the magistrates: but the learned JUDGE doubted whether, as Mr. Pearce could not establish that a felony had been committed, the evidence was sufficient to let in the confessions. He determined however to admit the evidence, and reserve the point for the opinion of the learned Judges. Each confession contained a most explicit acknowledgment of the felony charged in the indictment. The jury found the prisoners guilty, and sentence was passed upon them. The question was afterwards submitted to THE JUDGES; namely, whether, the evidence having been received, the conviction was good as to both or either of the prisoners. In Easter term, 1823, THE JUDGES present held the conviction right. (a) 1823. WHITE'S REX v. JOHN TIPPET. THIS was also an indictment for stealing two bushels of oats, BURROUGH, at the same assizes for the county of Cornwall. his stables. 1823. Confession of a prisoner against him, without positive proof aliunde of the offence hav evidence evidence as in the last ing been com mitted. See Rex v. White ante, 508. The confession of the prisoner before a magistrate was proved, & Langdon, in which he explicitly acknowledged that he, in company with White and Langdon (the prisoners convicted in the former case), stole oats from Mr. Pearce's granary. The learned JUDGE received the evidence, and the jury found the prisoner guilty. The question as to the propriety of the conviction upon this evidence was afterwards submitted to the consideration of THE Judges. (a) See Rex v. Falkner, ante, p. 481., and the next case Rex v. Tippet. 1823. TIPPET'S Case. In Easter term, 1823, seven of the learned JUDGES (all who met upon the occasion), were of opinion that the conviction was right, as there was not only the confession but the evidence of Pearce also, which made it probable that oats had been stolen ; as it appeared from such evidence that the door of the granary had been broken open. And most of the learned JUDGES thought that, without the owner's evidence, the prisoner's confession was evidence upon which the jury might have convicted. (a) 1823. may be de REX v. FREDERICK JOHN WILLIAM NORTON. A prosecutor THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON HULLOCK, at the Old Bailey sessions, on the 12th of April, 1823, upon an indictment for stealing in the dwelling-house of Mary Johnson, one clock of the value of six pounds, and several other articles, her property. scribed by a name he has assumed, though it be not his right name. The felony, and the prisoner's guilt were clearly established. The prosecutrix swore, that the articles mentioned in the indictment were her property. She also stated that her original name was Mary Davis; but that she had been called and known by the name of Mary Johnson for the last five years. That she took the house in which the felony was com→ mitted, two years ago, in the name of Johnson; and had always gone and been known in the neighbourhood by the name of Johnson, and had not for the last five years been known or called by the name of Davis. That she did not take the name of Johnson for any purpose of concealment or of fraud. The prisoner's counsel objected to the indictment, on the ground that the dwelling-house was improperly laid as the dwelling-house of Mary Johnson. And, the prisoner being convicted, the question, whether the dwelling-house was well described in the indictment, was reserved for the opinion of THE JUDGES. (a) See Wheeling's Case, 1 Leach, 311. note (a). 1821, ante, p. 440. Rex v. Falkner, ante, p. 481. ante, p. 508. Rex v. Eldridge, East. T. Rex v. White and Langdon, In Easter term, 1823, the point was taken into consideration by seven of the learned JUDGES, who were clearly of opinion that the time the prosecutrix had been known by the name of Johnson warranted her being so called in the indictment, and that the conviction was right. 1823. NORTON'S THE REX v. THOMAS CARLESS HUNTER. 1823. The instrument set forth HE prisoner was convicted before Mr. JUSTICE HOLROYD at Forgery. the summer assizes for the county of Warwick, in the year 1823, of uttering and publishing as true, a forged promissory note, with intent to defraud Benjamin Hobday, knowing it to be forged, against the statute. in the indicttherein de ment, and be a bill and not a note. scribed as a promissory The indictment, in stating and describing the forged instru- note, held to ment, stated it only as follows, without any innuendo explanation or allegation respecting it or its contents, further than as above stated, and thus denominating and describing it, viz. " a promissory note for the payment of money, which is as follows:" "£28 15 0. "Newport, Nov. 20, 1821. "Two months after date, pay Mr. Bn. Hobday, or order, the sum of twenty-eight pounds fifteen shillings. "Value recd. "JOHN JONES. "At Messrs. Spoon & Co. "Bankers, London." A question was submitted for the opinion of THE JUDGES, namely, whether the prisoner was rightly convicted on the above indictment, an objection having been taken, that the instrument so described was not in law a promissory note: or whether the objection was not properly an objection in arrest of judgment. In Easter term, 1825, THE JUDGES held that the instrument was a bill of exchange, and not a promissory note. 1823. REX v. WILLIAM FITZPATRICK. Indictment for THE prisoner was convicted before Mr. JUSTICE BAyley, at being at large the Lancaster spring assizes, in the year 1823, for being at large after an order for his transportation. after an order for transport ation. Variance in the statement of the condi tion upon which the royal mercy had been extended; the condition not being general, as stated, but specific; that the prisoner transported to places spe should be cified. The indictment against him stated that he was capitally convicted at the summer assizes of 1818; but that His Majesty was graciously pleased to extend his mercy to him, upon condition of his being transported for life to some parts beyond the seas; and that he was thereupon ordered to be transported to New South Wales, or to some of the islands adjacent. (a) It appeared in evidence, that the condition upon which he received the royal mercy was not general, as the indictment stated, but specific; that he should be transported to New South Wales, or some of the islands adjacent; and the learned JUDGE thought this a variance, because the real condition would not have warranted any order except for transportation to the places specified; whereas the condition, as stated in the indictment, would have warranted a general order. (a) The indictment stated the previous conviction of the prisoner (along with Daniel Fitzpatrick) at Lancaster assizes, 58 G. 3., for highway robbery, and the sentence of death passed upon them; and then proceeded thus: — "And the jurors aforesaid, now here sworn, do further present that His said late Majesty, having been graciously pleased to extend his royal mercy to the said William Fitzpatrick and Daniel Fitzpatrick on condition of their being transported to some parts beyond the seas, for and during the term of their natural lives, and such intention having been notified in writing by one of His said late Majesty's principal secretaries of state to the said Sir George Wood, Knight, the Judge before whom the said William Fitzpatrick and Daniel Fitzpatrick were convicted of the felony aforesaid, the said Judge was pleased to grant his fiat for the transportation of the said William Fitzpatrick and Daniel Fitzpatrick accordingly, and the said William Fitzpatrick and Daniel Fitzpatrick were afterwards, to wit, at the same general session of assize of oyer and terminer and general gaol delivery, held at the castle of Lancaster, on the said fifteenth day of August, in the fifty-eighth year of the reign aforesaid, ordered to be transported with all convenient speed to the coast of New South Wales, or some one or other of the islands adjacent, there to stay and remain for and during the term of their natural lives." The learned JUDGE therefore forbore to pass sentence; and saved the case for the consideration of THe Judges. In Easter term, 1823, THE JUDGES held that the conviction 1823. FITZPATRICK'S was wrong. REX v. WILLIAM ALLEN. 1823. dictment for a second offence against 42 G.3. c. 107. by killing deer, objections were taken to the the county, and THIS HIS was an indictment tried before the LORD CHIEF BARON Upon an inRICHARDS, at the Chelmsford spring assizes, in the year 1823. The indictment stated, that the said William Allen was, in pursuance of an act of parliament (42 G. 3. c. 107. s. 2.), convicted by and before E. R. Mores, Esq., one of His Majesty's Justices of the peace, acting in and for the county of Essex; for conviction for that he, the said William Allen did, on the 29th of November, the first of fence, viz. that 1820, in a certain uninclosed part of His Majesty's forest of it was not in Waltham, in the parish of Barking, in the county of Essex, un- proper lawfully and wilfully carry away a certain fallow deer, of which the King was owner, and without His Majesty's authority; and the said justice did adjudge, that the said William Allen had thereby forfeited 50l. &c.; and the indictment then proceeded to state, that the said William Allen, after having been duly convicted of the said offence did, on the 11th of December, 2 G. 4., offence held in the said county of Essex, unlawfully and feloniously offend a second time, by committing a certain offence against the said act of parliament, by wilfully and feloniously, aiding, abetting, and assisting, one John Hudgell, in killing a certain fallow deer, &c. (a) The conviction was properly proved; and appeared to be a conviction by E. R. Mores, Esq., one of His Majesty's Justices of the peace, acting in and for the county of Essex, and corresponded with the statement in the indictment, except that it was a conviction of four persons; namely, the said William Allen, and also Thomas Harvey, Luke Harvey, and William Warren: whereas it was stated in the indictment as the conviction of William Allen, without adverting to the other persons. (a) This is made an offence punishable by transportation. LL that it was not correctly indictment offence; and stated in the for the second the conviction for the second wrong. |