altogether an inclosed yard; the workshop had no internal
communication with the house, and it had a door opening
into the street; its roof was higher than that of the dwelling-
house; the street door of the workshop was broken open in
the night; and on indictment for burglary and conviction,
the Judges held this workshop was parcel of the dwelling-
house, and the conviction was right. Rex v. Chalking and
another.
Page 334
11. Introducing the hand between the glass of an outer window
and inner shutter, is sufficient entry to constitute burglary.
Rex v. Bailey and another.
12. Where a window opens upon hinges, and is fastened by
a wedge, so that pushing against it will open it; forcing
it open by pushing against it, is sufficient to constitute a
breaking. Rex v. Hall.
13. A building used with a dwelling-house, and opening into
an enclosed yard belonging thereto, may be parcel of the
dwelling-house, though it also opens into an adjoining street,
and although it has no internal communication with the
dwelling-house. Rex v. Lithgo.
14. Prisoner broke into a goose-house, opening into the pro-
secutor's yard, into which his house also opened; the yard
was surrounded partly by other buildings of the homestead
and partly by a wall; some of the buildings had doors open-
ing backward, and there was a gate in one part of the wall
opening upon a road; this goose-house was held part of the
dwelling-house. Rex v. Clayburn and another.
15. The prisoner broke the glass of prosecutor's side door on
the Friday night, with intent to enter at a future time, and
actually entered on the Sunday night. The Judges held
this burglary, the breaking and entering, being both by
night, and the breaking being with intent afterwards to
enter. Rex v. Smith.
16. Getting into the chimney of a house is a sufficient breaking
and entering to constitute burglary, though the party does
not enter any of the rooms of the house. Rex v. Brice. 450
17. Pulling down the sash of a window is a breaking, though
it has no fastening, and is only kept in its place by the
pulley weight; it is equally a breaking, although there is an
outer shutter which is not put to. Rex v. Haines and an-
other.
18. Where a married woman lived apart from her husband,
upon an income arising from property vested in trustees
for her separate use; held, that a house which she had
hired to live in, was properly described as her husband's
dwelling-house, though she paid the rent out of her separate
property, and the husband had never been in it. Rex v.
French.
Page 491
19. A building separated from the dwelling-house by a public
road, however narrow, will not be a parcel of the dwelling-
house, if there is no common fence or roof to connect them,
though it be held by the same tenure, and though some of
the offices necessary to the dwelling-house adjoin it, and
though there be an awning extending from it to the dwell-
ing-house. But if it is made a sleeping place for any of the
servants of the dwelling-house, it may be deemed a distinct
dwelling-house. Rex v. Westwood.
20. Where, in breaking a window in order to steal property in
the house, the prisoner's finger went within the house; held,
that there was a sufficient entry to constitute the burglary.
Rex v. Davis.
21. Held, that the house of a husband, in which he allowed his
wife to live separate from him, might be described as the house
of the husband, though the wife lived there in adultery with
another man, who paid the house-keeping expences, and
though the husband suspected a criminal intercourse be-
tween his wife and the other man when he allowed her to
live separate. Rex v. Wilford and another.
517
22. Upon an indictment for burglary and larceny against two,
one may be found guilty of the burglary and the larceny,
and the other of the larceny only. Rex v. Butterworth and
another.
23. If the owner of a cottage lets one of his workmen with his
family live in the cottage free of rent and taxes, and he live
there principally, if not wholly, for his own benefit, it may
be described as the workman's dwelling-house. Rex v.
Jobling.
Pigs held to be cattle within the meaning of the 9 G. 1. c. 22.
CERTIORARI.
See PRACTICE, 3.
CHURCH.
See SACRILEGE, 1.
CHEATS.
See FALSE PRETENCES. EVIDENCE, 25.
If there is a plan to cheat a man of his property under
colour of a bet, and he parts with the possession only to
deposit as a stake with one of the confederates, the taking
by such confederates is felonious. Rex v. Robson and
1. Indictment on the 15 G. 2. c. 28. s. 3. charged, that de-
fendant uttered a counterfeit half-crown to J. F., and that
at the time he so uttered it he had about him another
counterfeit half-crown; but he did not conclude with aver-
ring that he was a common utterer of false money: the Judges
held, that such averment was unnecessary, and that the in-
dictment was sufficient to warrant the greater punishment
of the 3d section of the statute. Rex v. Smith.
2. An indictment on the 15 G. 2. c. 28. for uttering after a con-
viction for a double offence, need not aver that defendant
was adjudged to be a common utterer: it is sufficient if it
states that he was tried and convicted of uttering to A., and
of uttering on the same day to B., and adjudged to be im-
prisoned a year. Rex v. Booth.
7
3. Indictment for uttering after conviction for a double of-
fence, need not aver that the offender was adjudged to be a
common utterer; it is sufficient if it states that he was tried
and convicted of uttering to A., and of uttering to B., and
adjudged to be imprisoned a year, &c. Rex v. Michael. 29
4. The prisoners, Job Else and Sarah Else, were indicted for
uttering a bad shilling to M. B., and having another bad
shilling in their possession at the time. The uttering was by
the woman alone in the absence of the man. Held, that the
man was not liable to be convicted with the actual utterer,
although proved to be the associate of the woman on the
day of the uttering, and to have had other bad money for
the purpose of uttering. Held, that the woman could not
be convicted of the second offence of having other bad
money in her possession at the time, on the evidence of her
associating with a man not present at the uttering, but hav-
ing large quantities of bad money about him for the purpose
of uttering. Rex v. Else.
Page 142
5. Having counterfeit silver in possession with intent to utter
it as good, is no offence: for there is no criminal act done.
Heath.
6. Procuring base coin with intent to utter it as good, is a
misdemeanor. Having a large quantity of such coin is
evidence of having procured it with such intent, unless there
are other circumstances to induce a suspicion that the de-
fendant was the maker. Rex v. Fuller and another.
308
7. On an indictment on the 8 & 9 W.3. c.26., it is incumbent
on prosecutor to show that the prosecution was commenced
within three months. Proof by parol that the prisoner was
apprehended for treason respecting the coin within the three
months, will not be sufficient if the indictment is after the
three months, and the warrant to apprehend or to commit
are produced. Upon an indictment for having in pos-
session a die made of iron or steel, proof of a die made of
either material will be sufficient. Rex v. Phillips and an-
other.
8. Upon an indictment for having in possession a die made of
iron and steel, proof of a die made of either material is suf-
ficient. Rex v. Oxford.
COMMON LAW.
See EMBEZZLEMENT, 5. FORGERY, 2.
18 Eliz. c. 5. Held, that a party is liable to the punishment
prescribed by this act, for taking the penalty imposed by a
penal statute, though there is no action or proceeding for
the penalty. Rex v. Gotley.
CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.
1. Upon a trial on the coroner's inquest for the murder of a
CONCEALMENT - continued.
bastard child, a woman may be found guilty of concealment
under the 43 G.3. c.58. s. 4. Rex v. Maynard. Page 386
2. A woman may be found guilty of concealment within the
43 G. 3. c. 58. s. 3., though from appearances it was probable
the child was still-born, and although the birth was probably
known to an accomplice. Rex v. Cornwall.
1. A prisoner was charged with stealing a guinea and two
promissory notes. The prosecutor told him that it would be
better for him to confess. Held, that after this admonition,
the prosecutor might prove that the prisoner brought him a
guinea and a 57. note, which he gave up to the prosecutor as
the guinea and one of the notes that had been stolen from him.
Rex v. Griffin.
2. The prosecutor asked the prisoner, on finding him, for the
money he the prisoner had taken out of the prosecutor's
pocket, but before the money was produced said, “he only
wanted his money, and if the prisoner gave him that, he
might go to the devil, if he pleased;" after which the pri-
soner took 11s. 6d. out of his pocket, and said it was all he
Held, that the confession ought not to have
Rex v. Jones.
had left of it.
been received.
3. Persons having nothing to do with the apprehension, pro-
secution, or examination of the prisoner, advised him to
tell the truth and consider his family. Held, that such
admonition was no ground for excluding a confession made
an hour afterwards to the constable in prison. Rex v.
Row.
4. A prisoner's confession is sufficient ground for a conviction,
though there is no other proof of his having committed the
offence, or of the offence having been committed, if that
confession was in consequence of a charge against the pri-
5. A prisoner's confession is sufficient ground for a conviction,
though there is no other proof of his having committed the
offence or of the offence having been at all committed, if
such confession was in consequence of a charge against the
prisoner; especially if there is evidence that he had been
desirous to keep out of the way of the person upon whom
the offence is supposed to have been committed, or if any of
his companions under the same charge have attempted to do
so. Rex v. Falkner and another.
|