intent in so doing (that is to say) in so shooting at the said Thomas Pearce as aforesaid," in each count were grammatically and legally referable to the last antecedent matter.
The jury found the prisoner guilty.
The learned JUDGE passed sentence upon him, but respited the execution in order that he might request the opinion of the learned JUDGES, as to the propriety of the conviction.
In Michaelmas term, 1823, THE JUDGES considered this case, and were of opinion that the evidence was properly received, and the prisoner rightly convicted.
ACCEPTANCE.
See FORGERY, 29, 30.
ACCESSARY.
See PRINCIPAL and ACCESSARY.
An accomplice does not require confirmation as to the person charged, provided he is confirmed in the particulars of his story. Rex v. Birkett and Brady.
1. A prisoner was indicted for maliciously shooting; the offence was within a few weeks after the 39 G. 3. c. 37. passed, and before notice of it could have reached the place where the offence was committed. On case the Judges thought he could not have been tried if the 39 G. 3. c. 37. had not passed, and, as he could not have known of that act, they thought it right he should have a pardon. Bailey. 2. Held that the Admiralty had no jurisdiction to try an offence against the statute 11 G. 1. c. 29. in procuring the destruc- tion of a ship of which the prisoners were the owners, there being no evidence of any act of procurement done upon the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. Rex v. Easterby and Macfarlane.
3. Piratically stealing a ship's anchor and cable is a capital offence by the marine laws, and triable under the 28 H. 8., the 39 G. 3. c. 37. not extending to this case. The stealing is equally an offence, though the master of the vessel concur in it, and though the object is to defraud the underwriters, not the owners. Rex v. Curling and others.
4. If a prisoner of war abroad enter on board an English mer-
chant ship, and, whilst in that capacity, commits an offence upon an Englishman in a foreign country, he cannot be tried for it here under the 33 H. 8. c. 23. and the 43 G. 3. c. 113. Rex v. Depardo.
Page 134 5. Held that the commissioners under the 28 H. 8. c. 15. are not restricted to places which are without the body of any county. When the haven, &c. is within the body of a county the common law tribunals have also a concurrent jurisdic- tion. Rex v. Bruce.
6. Prisoner was capitally convicted at the Admiralty sessions for maliciously stabbing, upon the 43 G. 3. c. 58. Held, that as the statute only made the offence capital if commit- ted in England or Ireland, it was not so if committed at sea. Rex v. Amarro.
7. A British subject is indictable under the 33 H. 8. c. 23. for the murder of another British subject though the murder was committed within the dominion of a foreign state. Stating in the indictment that the person murdered was, at the time, in the King's peace, is sufficient to show that he was a British subject. The conclusion in the indictment, that the offence was against the King's peace shows sufficiently that the prisoner was a British subject. For a common law felony committed abroad, but made triable here under the 33 H. 8. c. 23. the indictment need not conclude contrà for- mam statuti. Rex v. Sawyer.
Killing in an affray. Qu. Whether, under the circumstances, it amounted to murder? Rex v. Rankin and others
ANATOMISING.
See MURDER, 2.
ANIMALS, LARCENY OF,
See LARCENY, 17. 23, 24.
1. Altering a bill from a lower to a higher sum is forging it, and a person may be indicted on the 7 G. 2. c. 22. for forg- ing such an instrument, though the statute has the word alter as well as forge. It was held no ground of defence that before the alteration it had been paid by the drawer and re-issued. Rex v. Teague.
2. Altering a banker's one pound note by substituting the word ten for the word one, held to be forgery. Rex v. Post.
3. If a note be made payable at a country banker's, or at their banker's in London, substituting another place for one of the places named, by introducing a piece of paper over the names of the London bankers, containing the names of an- other banking house in London, is forgery. Rex v. Treble.
4. Discharging an indorsement and inserting another may, in an indictment for forging or uttering a bill of exchange, be described as altering an indorsement. Rex v. Birkett and Brady.
APPREHENSION. See DEER.
APPRENTICE.
See EMBEZZLEMENT, 2.
It is an indictable offence to refuse or neglect to supply neces- saries to a child, servant, or apprentice whom a person is bound by duty or contract to provide for, if such child, &c. be of tender years and unable to provide for itself. An in- dictment against a master for not providing necessaries for his apprentice ought to state that the apprentice was of ten- der years and unable to provide for itself. If the charge is that the prisoner received the child as an apprentice, an in- denture importing that a former master, with the child's consent, bound the child, will be sufficient evidence of the receiving as an apprentice, though such indenture is executed by a stranger as trustee for a former master, and not in the former master's name. Rex v. Friend et ux.
1. A king's evidence is not entitled as matter of right, to be exempt from being prosecuted for other offences at the same assizes at which he has been a witness for the crown. Rex v. Lee.
2. A king's evidence is not entitled, as matter of right, exempt from being prosecuted for other offences. Brunton.
Killing an officer will be murder, though he has no warrant, and was not present when the felony was committed, but
takes the party upon a charge only, and though that charge does not in terms specify all the particulars necessary to con- stitute the felony. Rex v. Ford.
1. In an indictment on 9 G. 1. c. 22. for setting fire to a hay stack, it is no answer to the charge that the prisoner had no malice or spite to the owner of the stack. It is not neces- sary to aver in the indictment that the stack "was thereby burnt." Rex v. Salmon.
2. An indictment for arson, with intent to defraud an insurance company, cannot be supported if the policy cannot be re- ceived in evidence for want of a proper stamp. If there is an alteration upon the policy to make it applicable to another house to which the goods have been removed, and that alter- ation is not stamped, the indictment cannot be supported. Rex v. Gilson.
3. The prisoner was indicted for setting fire to a mill, with intent to injure the occupier thereof. Held, that an injury to the mill being the necessary consequence of setting fire to it, the intent to injure might be inferred, for a man must be supposed to intend the necessary consequence of his own act. The 43 G. 3. c. 58. extends to cases which were before punishable under 9 G.3. c. 29., and is not restricted to cases which before were not felonies without clergy. Rex v. Far- rington.
207 4. A building within the curtilage (as a school-room) is "an outhouse" within the 9 G. 1. c. 22. though not of the ordinary description of outhouses. Rex v. Winter.
An indictment for seducing an artificer was found at the gene- ral sessions of oyer and terminer and general session of the peace for Middlesex, and was tried at the Old Bailey. The Judges held, that the statutes 5 G. 1. c. 27. and 23 G. 2. c. 13. gave no authority to prefer such an indictment at such a sessions, and judgment arrested accordingly.
1. If a master takes indecent liberties with a female scholar without her consent, though she does not resist, he is liable to be punished as for an assault. Rex v. Nichol.
« AnteriorContinuar » |