to make the breaking thereof burglary, though he has used
it for his meals and all the purposes of his business. Rex
v. Martin and another.

Page 108
2. Where the prosecutor left his house without any intention
of living in it again, and intending to use it as a warehouse
only; though he had persons (not of his family) to sleep in
it to guard the property; held that this could not be con-
sidered as "the dwelling-house" of the prosecutor, so as to
support a conviction for stealing there to more than the
amount of forty shillings. Rex v. Flannagan.
187

3. Though a man leaves his house and never means to reside
in it again, yet, if he uses part of it as a shop, and lets a
servant and his family board and sleep in another part of it
for fear the place should be robbed, and lets the rest to
lodgers, the habitation by his servant and family is an ha-
bitation by him, and the shop shall still be considered part
of his dwelling-house. Rex v. Gibbons and another. 442

INSANITY.

1. The first section of the 39 & 40 G. 3. c. 94. is confined to
cases of treason, murder, and felony; the second section ex-
tends to all offences. Therefore if, on a trial for a misde-
meanor, the defendant appears to be insane, and the jury
find him so, the Court may order him to be confined until
His Majesty's pleasure be known. Rex v. Little. 430

2. On a trial where the defence is insanity, a witness of medi-
cal skill may be asked whether such and such appearances,
proved by other witnesses, are, in his judgment, symptoms
of insanity. But Quære, Whether he can be asked, whether
from the other testimony given, the act with which the pri-
soner is charged is, in his opinion, an act of insanity, which is
the very point to be decided by the jury? Rex v.
Wright.

INTENTION.

456

The prisoner was indicted for setting fire to a mill with intent
to injure the occupiers 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.

Rex v. Farrington.

207

JOINT PROPERTY.

1. A father and son carried on business as farmers: the son
died intestate, after which the father continued the business
for the joint benefit of himself and the sons next of kin.
Some of the sheep were stolen, and were laid to be the pro-
perty of the father and the sons next of kin, and all the
Judges held it right. Rex v. Scott.
Page 13
2. D. and C. were partners; C. died intestate leaving a widow
and children; from the time of his death the widow acted
as partner with D., and attended the business of the shop;
three weeks after C.'s death part of the goods were stolen ;
they were described in the indictment as the goods of D.
and the widow; on case reserved the description was held
right. Rex v. Gaby.
178

JUDGMENT.

1. A man upon whom sentence of death has passed ought
not, while under that sentence, to be brought up to receive
judgment for another felony; although he was under that
sentence when he was tried for the other felony, and did not
plead his prior attainder.

268

2. On an indictment against two, charging them with a joint
offence, either may be found guilty; but they cannot be
found guilty separately of separate parts of the charge. If
they are found guilty separately, upon a pardon or nolle
prosequi as to the one who stands second upon the verdict,
judgment may be given against the other. Rex v. Hemp-
stead and another.

JURISDICTION.

See ADMIRALTY.

344

1. An indictment for seducing an artificer was found at the
general 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 awarded accordingly. See now
the 5 G. 4. c. 97. Rex v. Hewitt.

158

2. Indictments were found against a prisoner at the quarter
sessions for the North Riding of Yorkshire, and transmitted
to the assizes by the justices at session. Held, that although
the indictments were not removed by certiorari, the Judge
of assize should have tried the prisoner on these indict-

JURISDICTION- continued.

JURY.

ments, and that he was improperly discharged by proclamation without such trial. Rex v. Wetherell.

See GRAND JURY.

Page 381

If a juryman is taken ill, so as to be incapable of attending through the trial, the jury may be discharged, and the prisoner tried de novo, or another juryman may be added to the eleven; but in that case the prisoner should be offered his challenges over again as to the eleven, and the eleven should be sworn de novo. Rex v. Edwards.

KING'S EVIDENCE.

224

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.

Rex v. Brunton.

LARCENY.

361

454

1. Where an indictment described a bank note as signed by A. H. for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, conviction held bad, there being no evidence of A. H.'s signature. Describing a bank note " as a certain note commonly called a bank note," is not such a description as will warrant a conviction on 2 G.2. c. 25. for stealing it. Rex v. Craven.

14

28

2. Leaden images on pedestals fixed in the ground, near a
summer-house, and the summer-house being in an enclosed
field (but not within the same enclosure as the house) are
not within 4 G. 2. c. 32. Rex v. Richards and another.
3. A person employed in the post-office, at the time of taking
or secreting a letter, is not within the second section of 7 G.3.
c.50.; which makes it larceny to steal a letter out of the
post-office. Rex v. Pooley.

31

4. Stealing calico placed to be printed, &c. in a building made use of by a calico printer for printing, drying, &c. Held that in order to support the capital charge, it was necessary to prove that the building from which the calico was stolen was made use of either for printing or drying calico. Rex v. Dixon and others.

53

5. A summer-house used occasionally for tea and refreshment within the same inclosure as the house, though at the distance of about half a mile, is a building within the 4 G.2.

LARCENY

c. 32.

continued.

All buildings appear to be within 4 G. 2. c. 32.

v. Norris.

Rex

92

Page 69 6. If the master and owner of a ship steals some of the goods delivered to him to carry, it is not larceny in him unless he took the goods out of their package; nor, if larceny, would it be an offence within 24 G.2. c.45. Rex v. Madox. 7. The master of a Prussian vessel captured by a British ship and carried into the port of Weymouth, held not to be guilty of larceny in taking goods from the vessel under the particular circumstances, there being no evidence that he took them for the purpose of converting them to his own private use. Rex v. Van Muyen.

118

125

8. Where property, which the prosecutors had bought, was weighed out in the presence of their clerk and delivered to their carter's servant to cart, who let other persons take away the cart and dispose of the property for his benefit jointly with that of the other persons; held that the carter's servant, as well as the other persons, was guilty of larceny at common law. Rex v. Harding and others. 9. The prisoner pretending to be the servant of a person who had bought a chest of tea deposited at the Company's warehouse, got a request paper and permit for the chest, and took it away with the assent of a person in the India Company's service, who had the charge of it. The Judges on a case reserved held this felony. Rex v. Hench. 163 10. Stealing reissuable notes after they have been paid, and before they have been reissued, does not subject the party to an indictment on the 2 G. 2. c.25. for stealing notes; but he may be indicted for stealing the paper with valuable stamps upon it. Rex v. Clark.

181

11. Indictment on 5 G. 3. c. 14. s. 1. for entering an enclosed park and taking fish bred, kept, and preserved there in the river Kent running through the park. It appeared that the park was walled round, except where the river entered and passed out, and that there were fences to keep in the deer; that there was nothing to keep in the fish; that they were not known to breed there; that nothing was done to stock the river; but that persons were never suffered to angle in the park without leave. Held, that this was not a place where fish were to be considered as "kept, bred, or preserved," within the meaning of this act; and therefore conviction wrong. Rex v. Carradice and another.

PP

205

LARCENY-continued.

12. The prisoner received a check from Sir T. P. to buy exchequer bills; he carried it to the bankers, got the cash, and embezzled part. He was indicted for stealing: held, that as there was no fraud to induce Sir T. P. to deliver the check, it was not larceny, although the prisoner intended to misapply the property when he took it, and misapplied it accordingly. Held, that as Sir T. P. never had possession of the money received at the bankers, but by the hands of the prisoner, the indictment could not be supported. Rex v. Walsh. Page 215 13. If the ownership of goods is parted with, it is no felony, though the owner has been induced to part with them by a fraudulent representation. Rex v. Adams.

225

14. A servant clandestinely taking his master's corn, though to give to his master's horses, is guilty of larceny. Rex v. Morfit and another.

307

15. If a bag of wheat is delivered to a warehouseman for safe custody, and he takes all the wheat out of the bag and disposes of it, it is larceny. Rex v. Brazier.

337

16. Ferrets, though tame and saleable, cannot be the subject of larceny. Rex v. Searing.

350

359

17. 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 im-
port that they belonged, at the time of the theft, to the per-
sons who were the then overseers. Rex v. Went.
18. Cutting off part of a sheep while it is alive with intent to
steal it, will support an indictment for killing with an intent
to steal, if the cutting off must occasion the sheep's death.
Rex v. Clay.
387

19. 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.

411

407 20. 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. 21. 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

others.

413

22. An indictment for horse-stealing, must give the animal