POACHING.

See GAME.

POST OFFICE.

See EVIDENCE, 15.

1. If a person employed in the post-office secretes a letter
containing a draft, it is not an offence within the 7 G. 3.
c. 50. s. 1., if the draft (from not being duly stamped) was not
available. Rex v. Pooley.

Page 12
2. A person employed in the post-office at the time of taking
or secreting a letter, is not within the 2nd s. of 7 G. 3. c. 50.,
which makes it larceny to steal a letter out of the post-office.
Rex v. Pooley.

But see Rex v. Brown.

31

32 notis.

3. An indictment on the 7 G. 3. c. 50. s. 1., stating the prisoner
to have been employed in two branches of the post-office,
proof of his having been employed in either held sufficient.
If the letter embezzled is described as having contained
several notes, proof of its having contained any one of them
is sufficient. Rex v. Ellins.

188

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

POOR, NEGlecting.

See OVERSEER, 1.

POWER OF ATTORNEY.

232

A power of attorney is a deed within the meaning of the
2 G. 2. c. 25. s. 1. Rex v. Lyon.

PRACTICE.

255

1. Though the counsel for the prosecution has closed his case,
and the prisoner's counsel points out a defect, the Judge is
at liberty to put what question he thinks fit to answer the
objection. Rex v. Remnant.

136

2. A commissioner of gaol delivery may, at his discretion,
discharge or continue on their commitments in gaol, pri-
soners committed for trial, but against whom the witnesses
do not appear, being bound over to a subsequent sessions.
173

3. On an indictment against a receiver after conviction of the
principal, it is no objection to the record of conviction of
the principal, that it appears therein that the principal was
asked if he was (not is) guilty; that it does not state issue
was joined, or how the jurors were returned; and that the

PRACTICE- continued.

only award against the principal is that he is in mercy, &c.
Rex v. Baldwin.
Page 241
4. 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 sessions. Held, that although
the indictments were not removed by certiorari, the Judge
of assize should have tried the prisoner on these indictments,
and that he was improperly discharged by proclamation
without such trial. Rex v. Wetherell.

PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSARY.

381

1. Persons privy to the uttering of a forged note, by previous
concert with the utterer, but who were not present at the
time of uttering, or so near as to be able to afford any aid
or assistance, held not principals, but accessaries before the
fact. Rex v. Soares and others.

25

72

2. If a person knowingly delivers a forged bank note to an-
other, who knowingly utters it accordingly, the prisoner who
delivered such note to be put off, may be convicted of having
disposed and put away the same, on the statute 15 G.2.
c. 13. s. 11. Rex v. Palmer and another.
3. If several are out for the purpose of committing a felony,
and, upon an alarm, run different ways, and one of them
maim a pursuer to avoid being taken, the others are not to
be considered principals in such act. Rex v. White and an-
other.

99

4. Held not to be sufficient to make a person a principal in
uttering a forged note, that he came with the utterer to the
town where it was uttered, went out with him from the inn
at which they had put up a little before he uttered it, joined
him again in the street a short time after the uttering, and
at some little distance from the place of uttering, and ran
away when the utterer was apprehended. Rex v. Davis and
another.

113

5. 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 utter-
ance, 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

PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSARY- continued.

bad money in her possession at the time, on the evidence of her associating with a man not present at the uttering, but having large quantities of bad money about him for the purpose of uttering. Rex v. Else and another.

249

Page 142 6. If several plan the uttering of a forged order for payment of money, and it is uttered accordingly by one in the absence of the others, the actual utterer is alone the principal. Rex v. Badcock and others. 7. A wife, by her husband's order and procuration, but in his absence, knowingly uttered a forged order and certificate for the payment of prize money; held that the presumption of coercion at the time of uttering did not arise, as the husband was absent; and that the wife was properly convicted of the uttering and the husband of procuring. Rex v. Morris and another. 270

305

8. If several act in concert to steal a man's goods, and he is
induced by fraud to trust one of them in the presence of the
others with the possession of such goods, and another of them
entices him away, that the man who has his goods may carry
them off, all are guilty of felony. The receipt by one is a
felonious taking by all. Rex v. Standley and others.
9. If several agree to commit a burglary, but one communi-
cates the intent to an officer, that he may take the other two,
and the officer is upon the watch accordingly, the person
who has made that communication to the officer will not be
particeps criminis in the burglary, though he is present when
it is committed, and pretends to assist the other two; but, in
fact, expedites their apprehension. Nor will it make any
difference, though his object in detecting is to obtain for
himself (by previous agreement with the officer) part of a
reward that will be payable on conviction. Rex v. Dannelly
and another.
10. H. and S. broke open a warehouse and stole thereout 13
firkins of butter, &c. which they carried along the street 30
yards; they then fetched the prisoner who was apprised of
the robbery, and he assisted in carrying away the property;
he was indicted for the theft as a principal, and convicted;
conviction held wrong, that he was only an accessary, and
not a principal. Rex v. King.

See also Rex v. M'Makin and another.

310

332

333, notis.

11. Privately stealing in a shop, &c. If several are acting together, some in the shop &c., and some out, and the property,

PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSARY- continued.

353

363

is stolen by the hands of one of those who are in the shop, those who are on the outside are equally guilty as principals, and equally deprived of clergy. But as to clergy, see now 4 G. 4. c. 53. Rex v. Gogerly and others. Page 343 12. 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. 13. Persons not present, nor sufficiently near to give assistance, are not principals. Rex v. Stewart and another. 14. Going towards a place where a felony is to be committed, in order to assist in carrying off the property, and assisting accordingly, will not make a man a principal, if he was such a distance at the time of the felonious taking as not to be able to assist in it. Rex v. Kelly. 15. If several combine to forge an instrument, and each executes by himself a distinct part of the forgery, and they are not together when the instrument is completed, they are nevertheless all guilty as principals. Rex v. Bingley and

others.

421

446

16. If a man encourages another to murder himself, and is present 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. Rex v. Dyson. 523 PRISON BREACH.

458

1. Prison-breach, or rescue, is a common law felony, if the
person breaking prison, or rescued, is a convicted felon;
and it is punishable as a common law felony by imprison-
ment, and, under 19 G.3. c. 74. s. 4., by not more than three
times whipping. Rex v. Haswell.
2. Throwing down loose bricks at the top of a prison wall,
placed there to impede escape and give alarm, is prison
breach, though they are thrown down by accident. Ibid.
3. Indictments on the 16 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

PRISON BREACH-continued.

condition of transportation; and a party may be convicted, though there is no evidence that he knew of what specific offence the person he assisted had been convicted. Rex v. Shaw and others. Page 526

PRISONER AT WAR.

The offence of aiding a prisoner at war to escape is not complete, if such prisoner is acting in concert with those under whose charge he is, merely to detect the defendant, and has no intention to escape. Rex v. Martin.

PRISONERS.

196

A commissioner of gaol delivery may at his discretion, discharge or continue on their commitments in gaol, prisoners committed for trial, but against whom the witnesses do not appear, being bound over to a subsequent session.

173

PRIVATELY STEALING FROM THE SHOP. Privately stealing in a shop, &c. If several are acting together, some in the shop, &c. and some out, and the property is stolen by the hands of one of those who are in the shop, those who are on the outside are equally guilty as principals and equally deprived of clergy. But as to clergy, see now the 4 G. 4. c. 53. Rex v. Gogerly and others.

See Rex v. M‘Kenzie.

PROBATE.

343

4.29

On indictment for forging a will, probate of that will un-
repealed is not conclusive evidence of its validity, so as to be
a bar to the prosecution. Rex v. Buttery and another. 342
Rex v. Gibson.
343 notis.

PROMISSORY NOTE.

See FORGERY, 25. 34.

PUNISHMENT.

1. Upon an indictment for the misdemeanor under the 22 G. 3. c. 58. the punishment should be fine, imprisonment, or whipping, imprisonment and fine, or imprisonment and whipping cannot be inflicted. Rex v. Howell and an

other.

253

2. Under the 39 G. 3. c. 85. it is not necessary to pass sentence of transportation; any less punishment to which felony is liable may be inflicted. Rex v. Hudson.

285

3. An act, from its passing, repeals a former act which ousted clergy from a certain offence, and imposes a new punish