6. If a confession is improperly obtained, it is ground for ex-
cluding evidence of the confession and of any act done by
the prisoner in consequence towards discovering the pro-
perty, unless the property is actually discovered thereby.
Rex v. Jenkins.
Page 492
7. The confession of a prisoner before a magistrate is suffi-
cient ground to warrant a conviction, though there is no
positive proof aliunde that the offence had been committed,
at least if there is probable evidence that it had been com-
mitted. Rex v. White and another.
8. Confession of a prisoner, evidence against him without
positive proof aliunde of the offence having been committed.
Rex v. Tippet.
Taking a rabbit in a wire is sufficient to constitute an of-
fence within the 5 G. 3. c. 14. s. 6., though the rabbit is not
killed, and though the party never takes it away.
1. Where a company carries on the business of bankers, al-
though incorporated for a totally different purpose. Held that
it is no offence under 41 G. 3. c. 57. s. 2. to have a plate for
making bills of exchange in the name of such corporate
company. The Judges were also of opinion that, indepen-
dent of this objection, the indictment was bad having omit-
ted to aver that the company "carried on the business of
bankers." Rex v. Catapodi.
2. The prisoner was convicted for uttering a forged note of a
Scotch corporation, called the British Linen Company; held
that the uttering a forged note of a Scotch corporation was
not an offence within the meaning of the 2 G. 2. c. 25.
Qu. Whether such a company has any authority to issue
bills? Rex v M'Kay.
CORONER'S INQUEST.
See BASTARDs, 1.
COUNTY.
See INDICTMENT, 18.
1. When the prisoner, having been apprehended for another
offence is detained in the same county for bigamy, the
detainer is such an apprehension as will warrant the in-
dicting him in that county under 1 Jac. 1. c.11.
Gordon.
2. A denial by a servant when in the county of Stafford, of his
having received money in the county of Salop, holden to be
evidence to show that the receipt in the county of Salop was
with intent to embezzle within the 39 G. 3. c. 85., and therefore
that the trial was properly had in the county of Salop. Rex
v. Hobson.
3. Held, that if a servant receive money for his master in the
county of A., and being called upon to account for it in the
county of B., there deny the receipt of it, he may be in-
dicted for the embezzlement in the latter county. Rer v.
Taylor.
4. An indictment for forgery stated the offence to have been
committed in the county of Nottingham; it was proved to
have been committed in the county of the town. Held, that,
although under the 38 G. 3. c. 52. it was triable in the county
at large, the offence should have been laid in the county of
of the town. Rex v. Mellor and another.
144
5. If a delivery to the party's own servant of a box containing
forged stamps is in one county, and the inn to which the
servant is to carry them to be forwarded by a carrier be in
another county, the party may be indicted in the former
county. Rex v. Collicott.
CUTTING.
See INDICTMENT, 25.
1. Where a cutting is inflicted by an instrument capable of
cutting, the case is within the 43 G. 3. c. 58., though the in-
strument be not intended for cutting, nor ordinarily used to
cut, but generally used to force open drawers, doors, &c.
and though the intention was not to cut but to inflict some
other mischief. Rex v. Hayward.
2. A striking over the face with the sharp or claw part of a
hammer held to be a sufficient cutting within the 43 G. 3. c 58.
Rex v. Atkinson.
3. Cutting a child's private parts, so as to enlarge them for the
time, may be considered as doing her grievous bodily harm,.
and done with that intent, though the hymen is not injured,
the incision is not deep, and the wound, eventually, is not
dangerous. Rex v. Cox.
Taking a person's dead body from a burial ground to dispose
of for gain and profit, is an indictable offence.
Gilles.
DECENCY, OFFENCES AGAINST.
See DEAD BODIES.
A power of attorney is a deed within the meaning of the
16 G. 3. c. 30. s. 9., as to seizing the guns, and of persons carry
ing them into ground where deer are usually kept with intent
to destroy deer, and as to beating or wounding the keepers,
&c. in the execution of their office. Held, that an assistant
keeper had no right to seize the person of one so armed in
order to get his gun, without having first demanded the
gun. Qu. Whether an assistant-keeper, appointed by the
keeper only, and not confirmed by the owner of the forest,
chase, &c. can, in the absence of the keeper, seize guns, &c.?
Rex v. Amey.
1. When a witness upon a trial gives evidence contradictory
to facts contained in a deposition made by such witness in a
former proceeding in the same case, the Judge may order
such deposition to be read, in order to impeach the credit
of the witness. Rex v. Oldroyd.
2. A deposition of the deceased held admissible in a case of
murder, although taken when the prisoner was charged with
another offence, and although the greater part of it had been
reduced into writing during his absence, it appearing that
the deceased was afterwards re-sworn in the prisoner's pre-
sence, the deposition then read over and stated by the de-
ceased to be correct, and the prisoner asked whether he had
any questions to put. Rex v. Smith.
See COIN, 7, 8.
DISSECTION.
See MURDER, 2.
DIVORCE.
See BIGAMY, 4.
The divorces and sentences referred to in s. 3. of the 1 Jac. 1.
c. 11. are divorces and sentences of the ecclesiastical courts
within the limits to which the 1 Jac. 1. applies. Rex v.
Lolley.
See BURGLARY, 2. 4, 5. 7, 8, 9, 10. 13, 14. 18, 19. 21. 23.
DYING DECLARATIONS.
See EVIDENCE, 16.
EMBEZZLEMENT.
See COUNTY, 2, 3. INDICTMENT, 6. 8. 20. 23. 29.
1. A Bank clerk employed to post into the ledger and read
from the cash-book, Bank-notes from 1007. in value up to a
1000l., and who in the course of that occupation had, with
other clerks, access to a file, upon which paid notes of every
description were filed; took from that file a paid bank note
for 50l. Held, that the prisoner could not be considered as
entrusted with the possession of this note, so as to bring
him within the 15 G. 2. c. 13. s. 12. Qu. Whether a note once
cancelled by the Bank is within the 15 G. 2. c. 13.? Rex v.
Bakewell.
2. The statute 39 G. 3. c. 85. extends only to such servants as
are employed to receive money, and to instances in which
they receive money by virtue of their employment. It seems
that an apprentice, though under the age of eighteen, is
within the statute. Rex v. Mellish.
3. Where the owner of a colliery employed the prisoner as
captain of one of his barges to carry out and sell coal, and
paid him for his labour by allowing him two-thirds of the
price for which he sold the coals, after deducting the price
charged at the colliery. Held, that the prisoner was a servant
within the meaning of 39 G. 3. c. 85.; and having embez-
EMBEZZLEMENT-continued.
zled the price he was guilty of larceny within the words of
that act. Rex v. Hartley.
Page 139
4. If a servant receive money for his master for an article
made of his master's material, it will be within the 39 G. 3.
c. 85. if he embezzle it, though he made the articles, and was
to have a given proportion of the price for making them.
Rex v. Hoggins.
5. Although property has been in the possession of the pri-
soner's masters, and they only entrust the custody of such
property to a third person to try the honesty of their ser-
If the servant receives it from such third
person and
embezzles it, it is an offence under the 39 G. 3. c.85. Semble,
that the 39 G. 3. c. 85. does not apply to cases which were
larceny at common law. Rex v. Headge.
6. A person employed upon commission to travel for orders
and to collect debts, is a clerk within the 39 G. 3. c. 85.,
though he is employed by many different houses on each
journey, and pays his own expences out of his commission
on each journey, and does not live with any of his em-
ployers, nor act in any of their counting-houses. Rex v.
Carr.
7. A female servant is within the 39 G. 3. c. 85. If a servant
receives money from his master to pay to J. C., and does not
pay it, Qu. if he can be indicted for embezzlement? Rex v.
Smith.
8. A man is sufficiently a servant within the 39 G. 3. c. 85.,
although he is only occasionally employed, when he has
nothing else to do; and it is sufficient if he was employed to
receive the money he embezzled, though receiving money
may not be in his usual employment, and although it was
the only instance in which he was so employed. Rex v.
Spencer.
9. A clerk intrusted to receive money at home from out-door
collectors, receives it abroad from out-door customers. Held,
that such a receipt of money may be considered "by virtue
of his employment," within the 39 G. 3. c. 85., though it is
beyond the limits to which he is authorized to receive money
for his employers. Rex v. Beechey.
10. The overseers of a township employed the prisoner as their
accountant and treasurer, and he received and paid all the
money receivable or payable on their account; he received
|