Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

MISDEMEANOR-continued.

surrogate to procure a marriage licence, only charges the
taking the false oath without stating it was for the purpose
of procuring a licence, or that a licence was procured there-
by, the party cannot be punished thereon as for a misde-
meanor; but if the purpose is to obtain a licence, and the
licence is obtained and the marriage had, the party may be
indicted as for a misdemeanor. Rex v. Foster.

MURDER.

Page 459

1. Killing in an affray. Qu. Whether, under the circumstances,
it amounted to murder. Rex v. Rankin and others. 43
2. Qu. Whether the award of dissection and anatomising in
pursuance of 25 G. 2. c. 37. is an essential part of the sen-
tence to be pronounced by the Judge upon a convicted
murderer? Rex v. Fletcher.

58

3. If A. stands with an offensive weapon in the door-way of a
room wrongfully to prevent J. S. from leaving it and others
from entering, and C., who has a right in the room, strug-
gles with him to get his weapon from him, upon which D.,
a comrade of A.'s stabs C., it will be murder in D. if C. dies.
Rex v. Longden.

228

4. In murder it is not essential to award the day of execution.
in the sentence the statute in that respect being only di-
rectory; and if a wrong day is awarded it will not vitiate
the sentence if the mistake is discovered and set right dur-
ing the assizes. Rex v. Wyatt.

230

5. A British subject is indictable under the 33 Hen. 8. c. 23.,
for the murder of another British subject, though the murder
was committed within the dominion of a foreign state.
v. Sawyer.

Rex

294

6. Killing an officer will be murder, though he has no war-
rant, 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 neces-
sary to constitute the felony. Rex v. Ford.

329

7. Indictment for murder. If the death proceeds from suffo-
cation, 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 im-
mediately causing the suffocation, viz. the swelling, need not
be stated. Rex v. Tye.

345

8. Indictment for the murder of a bastard child, held that a

MURDER continued.

bastard was improperly described by his mother's name,
he not having gained that name by reputation. Rex v.
Clark.

Page 358

9. If a man encourage another to murder himself, and is pre-
sent abetting him while he does so, such person is guilty of
murder as a principal. If two encourage each other to
murder themselves together, and one does so, but the
other fails in the attempt upon himself, he is a principal
in the murder of the other. But if it be uncertain whether
the deceased really killed himself, or whether he came to
his death by accident before the moment when he meant to
destroy himself, it will not be murder in either.
Dyson.

NAVY BILL.

See ORDER, 3.

OATH.

Rex v.

523

A false oath before a surrogate to procure a marriage li-
cence will not support a prosecution for perjury. Rex v.
Foster.

OFFENCES ABROAD.

See ADMIRALTY.

OFFENSIVE WEAPON.

459

A stick held to be an "offensive weapon" within the statute
7 G. 2. c. 21., though not of extraordinary size, and though
it might in general be used as a walking stick. See now
4G.4. c. 54. s. 5. which repeals the former statute, and does
not require that the assault should have been made with
any weapon. Rex v. Johnson.

OFFICERS.

492

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 consti-
tute the felony. Rex v. Ford.

ORDER.

329

1. Indictment held to be bad on the ground that the instru-
ment given in evidence was not, as stated, an order for
money. Rex v. Cartwright.

106

2. The prisoner drew a bill, "Please to pay the bearer on de-
mand 151.," and signed it with his own name, but it was not
addressed to any one: there were forged upon this instru-

ORDER-continued.

ment, when uttered, the words and signature, "Payable at Messrs. Masterman & Co., White Hart Court, Wm. M'Inerheny." M'Inerheny kept cash at Masterman & Co.'s, who were bankers. The Judges held this was not an order for payment of money, there being no special averments in the indictment that this was intended for an order, or that Masterman & Co. were bankers. Rex v. Ravenscroft. Page 161 3. The prisoner drew a bill upon the Treasurer of the Navy, payable to blank or order, and signed it in the name of a navy surgeon. Held that to constitute an order for payment of money there must be some payee; a direction to pay to blank or order is not sufficient. Rex v. Richards. 193 Rex v. Randall.

195

4. A justice's order was forged, stating that a dead body had been cast on shore in the parish of A., that I. S. had made oath before the justice that he had laid out 3l. 5s. in the burying him, and requiring the treasurer to pay him the sum. Held, that this was a warrant or order for the payment of money within the 7 G. 2., though the order did not state that I. S. was a churchwarden &c. Rex v. Froud. 389 OVERSEER.

1. An overseer is not indictable for not relieving a pauper, unless there is an order for his relief, except in case of immediate emergency where there is not time to get an order. Rex v. Meredith and another.

See also Rex v. Booth.

Rex v. Warren.

46 47 notis.

48 notis.

2. 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.

OWNERSHIP.

See INDICTMENT, 14. 31, 32. 43. 47. JOINT PROPERTY. PAID NOTE.

359

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 50%. Held, that the prisoner could be considered as en

PAID NOTE-continued.

trusted with the possession of this note, so as to bring him within the 15 G. 2. c. 13. s. 12. Rex v. Bakewell.

Page 35

2. Stealing re-issuable notes after they have been paid, and before they have been re-issued, 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

3. Secreting a letter containing country bank-notes paid in London and not reissued, holden to be within the statute 7 G. 3. c. 50. Rex v. Ranson.

PARDON.

232

1. Held that a person who had been convicted of grand larceny, sentenced to transportation for seven years, confined in the hulks and discharged at the end of seven years, was a competent witness, such confinement operating as a statute pardon; and that having escaped twice during such confinement for a few hours each time, did not destroy the effect of it. Rex v. Badcock and others.

248 2. Indictment on the 15 G. 2. c. 31. for delivering instruments to a prisoner to facilitate his escape from gaol. Held that the delivering is within the act, though the prisoner has been pardoned of the offence of which he was convicted on condition of transportation. Rex v. Shaw and others.

PAUPER.

See OVERSEER, 1.

PEER.

526

An Irish peer ought not to serve upon a grand jury unless he is a member of the House of Commons.

PERJURY.

117

1. If, in the indictment, the oath is stated to have been at the assizes, before Justices assigned to take the said assizes, before A. B., one of the said Justices, the said Justices then and there having power, &c., it will be a fatal variance if the oath was administered when the Judge was sitting under the commission of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol delivery. Rex v. Lin

coln.

421

2. A false oath before a surrogate to procure a marriage li-
cence, will not support a prosecution for perjury.
Foster.

PERSON.

See STEALING FROM THE PERSON.

Rex v.

4.59

PERSON, DESCRIPTION OF.

See INDICTMENT, 19. 26. 42. 45.

If the charge against an accessary is, that the principal felony was committed by persons unknown, it is no objection that the same grand jury have found a bill imputing the principal felony to J. S. Rex v. Bush. PERSONATING.

Page 372

1. The prisoner applied at Greenwich Hospital for prizemoney in the name of J. B. J. B. was dead, and was supposed to be so at the hospital, and the prisoner did not obtain the money; on indictment for personating, &c. held, that the 54 G. 3. c. 93. s. 89. applied, although the seaman was dead. Rex v. Martin.

324

2. The prisoner personated one Cuff who was dead, and whose prize-money had been paid to his mother. The Judges held, that that did not vary the prisoner's guilt; and that he was rightly convicted on the 54 G. 3. c. 93. s. 89. Rex v. Cramp.

327

3. Indictment on 57 G. 3. c. 127. s. 4., for personating the
name of a seaman. To constitute this offence, a person
entitled, or really supposed to be entitled, to wages, must be
personated; personating a man who never had any connec-
tion with the ship is not an offence within the act. When
there never was such a person belonging to the ship as the
person described by the indictment as the person person-
ated, the prisoner cannot be convicted, though there was a
person belonging to the ship of nearly the same name whom
the prisoner meant to personate. Rex v. Tannet.
4. All persons aiding and abetting the personating a seaman
are principals; the offence is not confined to the person only
who personates the seaman.
Rex v. Potts.

PIGS.

351

353

Pigs held to be cattle within the meaning of the 9 G. 1. c. 22.
Rex v. Chapple.

PIRACY.

77

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. 2. 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 and not the owner. Rex v. Curling and others. 123

PLACE, DEScription of.

See INDICTMENT, 46.

« AnteriorContinuar »