INDICTMENT- continued.

and in this case the laying the offence to have been against the form of the statute will not supply the defect. Rex v. Cook.

Page 176 13. An indictment in the next adjoining county, for an offence within an inferior county, need not aver that the former is the next adjoining county. When the record is regularly drawn up, that may be stated in the caption; but the indictment must state the offence to have been committed in the inferior county. Rex v. Goff.

179

14. Property cannot be laid in a person who has never had either actual or constructive possession. Rex v. Adams. 225 15. If a house is let to A. and a warehouse under the same roof, and with an internal communication to A. and B., the warehouse, in an indictment for burglary, cannot be described as the dwelling-house of A. Rex v. Jenkins and another.

244

16. A bank post bill cannot, in an indictment for forgery or uttering, be described as a bill of exchange; but it may be described as a bank bill of exchange. Discharging an indorsement and inserting another may be described as altering an indorsement. Rex. v. Birkett and Brady.

Rex v. Chalkley.

251

258

17. An indictment on the 9 G. 1. c. 22. must state the species
of cattle wounded or injured; to state that the prisoner
maimed certain cattle is not sufficient. If the statement is
that he maimed certain cattle, viz. a mare, there must be
evidence that the animal named is of the description speci-
fied.
18. If an indictment against a bankrupt for concealing pro-
perty, in stating the property does not sufficiently specify
particular parts of it, though it may sufficiently specify
others, and those specified may be of the necessary value,
the indictment will be bad, because the statement as to the
parts not specified tends to embarrass the prisoner. Where
value is essential to constitute an offence, and the value is
ascribed to many articles collectively, the offence must be
made out as to every one of those articles, for the grand
jury has only ascribed that value to all those articles collec-
tively. Rex v. Forsyth.

274 19. 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

INDICTMENT-continued.

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 contra formam statuti. Rex v. Sawyer.

Page 294 20. An indictment for embezzling need not specify the exact sum embezzled. Rex v. Carson.

303 21. Indictment on the 43 G. 3. c. 58. The first three counts alleged, in the usual form, that J. S. did shoot at A. B.; and went on to state that M. and N. were present, aiding and abetting; the second and third counts varying from the first only in the intent; the three last counts varying in like manner as to the intent, stated, that an unknown person, &c. did shoot at A. B., &c. and that J. S. and M. and N. were present aiding and abetting the said unknown person, the felony aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, to do and commit, and were then and there knowing of and privy to the committing of the said felony, against the statute, &c. but omitted to charge them with being feloniously present, &c. Held, that J. S. was properly convicted on this indictment, although the jury negatived his being the person who fired the pistol at A. B. Rex v. Towle and others. 314 22. An indictment for presenting a forged order to W. L. treasurer, &c. pretending it was genuine, and obtaining from W. L. under it 4l. 10s. 6d., after charging that the prisoner, with intent to cheat, &c. the treasurer, presented the order, and that he knowingly, &c. pretended it was a genuine order proceeded," and so the jurors, &c. say that the prisoner, on the day and year, &c. did obtain the said sum of 47. 10s. 6d.;” but the intent to cheat and defraud W. L. was not stated in this part of the indictment, nor was the obtaining charged to have been effected knowingly and designedly; indictment held bad. Rex v. Rushworth. 317

335

23. An indictment for embezzling ought to set out specifically
some article of the property embezzled, and the evidence
should support that statement. Rex v. Furneaux.
24. Indictment for murder. If the death proceeds from suf-
focation from the swelling up of the passage of the throat,
and such swelling proceeds from wounds occasioned by
forcing something into the throat, it will be sufficient to state
in the indictment that the things were forced into the throat,
and the person thereby suffocated, the process immediately

causing the suffocation, viz. the swelling, need not be stated. Rex v. Tye. Page 345 25. Indictment on the 43 G. 3. c. 58. for cutting J. S., the evidence was that the wounds were inflicted by stabbing and not by cutting. The Judges held the conviction wrong. Rex v. McDermot.

358

356 26. Indictment for the murder of a bastard child. Held, that a bastard was improperly described by his mother's name, he not having gained that name by reputation. Rex v. Clark. 27. An indictment for stealing goods may, under the 55 G. 3. c. 137., state them to be the goods of the overseers of the poor for the time being of the parish of A., for this will import that they belonged, at the time of the theft, to the persons who were the then overseers. Rex v. Went. 28. Indictment on the 43 G. 3. c. 58. The intent laid in several counts of the indictment was to murder, to disable, or do some grievous bodily harm. The intent found by the jury was to prevent being apprehended. Held, that the conviction was bad; that if the intent is to prevent the prisoner's apprehension, it must be so laid. Rex v. Duffin and another.

359

365

29. An indictment for embezzling must describe, according to the fact, some of the property embezzled. Rex v. Tyers. 402 30. An indictment for stealing a sheep, or any other cattle, must mention or ascribe to it some value, for unless the value exceeds twelve pence, it will not be a capital offence. Rex v. Peel.

407

31. In larceny the goods of a ready furnished lodging must be described as the lodger's goods, not as the goods of the original owners. Rex v. Belstead.

411

32. The goods in a dissenting chapel vested in trustees cannot be described as the goods of a servant who has merely the custody of the chapel and things in it, to clean and keep in order, though he has the key of the chapel, and no other person but the minister has another key. Rex v. Hutchinson and another.

412

33. An indictment for a rape stated to have been committed on the 9th of March, 1 G. 4., concluded "against the peace of our said late lord the king." Held, that the word "late" might be rejected as surplusage. Rex v. Scott.

415

INDICTMENT-continued.

34. An indictment for horse stealing must give the animal one
of the descriptions mentioned in the statute. Therefore an
indictment for stealing a colt not saying whether it was horse
or mare will not be sufficient to take away clergy, but the
prisoner may be convicted of simple larceny. Rex v.
Beaney.
Page 416
35. If one statute subjects an act to a pecuniary penalty, and a
subsequent statute makes it felony, an indictment for the
felony concluding against the form of the statute (in the sin-
gular number only) is right. Rex v. Pim.

425
36. Indictment, tried summer assizes 1 G. 4., stated, that the
prisoner, on the 20th of July, in the fourth year of the reign
of King George the Fourth, stole a mare, against the peace
of our lord the now king. The Judges held the words
"fourth year of the" might be rejected as surplusage, and
that the prisoner was properly convicted on this indictment.
Rex v. Gill.

431

37. On an indictment for burglariously breaking and entering
a dwelling-house and then and there stealing goods therein,
the prisoner may be well convicted of burglary if the lar-
ceny be proved, secus if not. Rex v. Furnival.
445
38. Indictment on 56 G. 3. c. 27. s. 8. should set forth the
effect and substance of the former conviction, so likewise
should the certificate of the former conviction. The in-
dictment or the certificate under this section of the statute,
stating the former conviction to have been felony only is in-
sufficient. Rex v. Watson.

468

39. Forgery of a Prussian treasury note. The note in ques-
tion being in a foreign language, and the indictment not
containing any English translation of it, judgment arrested.
Rex v. Goldstein.

473

40. An indictment for stealing 10l. in monies numbered is not
sufficient; some of the pieces of which the money consisted
should be specified. Rex v. Fry.

482

41. In an indictment for larceny, if the thing stolen be de-
scribed as a bank post bill and be not set out, the Court
cannot take judicial notice that it is a promissory note or
that it is such an instrument as under the statute 2 G. 2.
c. 25. may be the subject of larceny, though it be described
as made for the payment of money. Rex v. Chard. 488
42. If the name of a prisoner is unknown, and he refuse to
disclose it, an indictment against him as a person whose

INDICTMENT - continued.

name is to the jurors unknown, but who is present brought
before the jurors by the keeper of the prison will be suffi-
cient. But an indictment against him as a person to the
jurors unknown, without something to ascertain whom the
grand jury meant to designate, is insufficient. Anony-

mous.

Page 489
43. 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 proper-
ty, and the husband had never been in it. Rex v. French. 491
44. An indictment for stealing a dead animal should state that
it was dead; for upon a general statement that the party
stole the animal it is to be inferred that he stole it alive.
Rex v. Edwards and another.
497

510

45. A prosecutor may be described by a name he has assumed,
though it is not his right name. Rex v. Norton.
46. The indictment under 57 G. 3. c. 90., charging a party
with having entered into a park, chase, &c. with intent to
destroy game, and being found armed in the night, must in
some way or other particularize the place. Rex v. Ridley. 515
47. 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 housekeeping expences,
and though the husband suspected a criminal intercourse
between his wife and the other man when he allowed her to

live separate. Rex v. Wilford and another.

INDICTABLE OFFENCES.

517

1. It is an indictable offence to refuse or neglect to supply
necessaries to a child, servant, or apprentice, whom a per-
son is bound by duty or contract to provide for, if such
child, &c. be of tender years and unable to provide for
itself. Rex v. Friend et ux.

20

2. Taking a person's dead body from a burial ground with
intent to dispose of the same for gain and profit. Held, an
indictable offence. Rex v. Gilles.

INHABITANCY.

366. notis.

1. Where the owner has never by himself, or by any of his
family, slept in the house, it is not his dwelling-house so as