STAMPS, FORGERY OF.

The offence of uttering a forged stamp will be complete al-
though at the time of uttering, certain parts of the stamp
are concealed, but all the parts that are visible are like a
genuine stamp, though the part concealed is unlike a genu-
ine stamp. Rex v. Collicott.
Page 212, 229.

STEALING FROM THE PERSON.

See LARCENY, 20.

An indictment on the 48 G. 3. c. 129. need not negative the force or fear necessary to constitute robbery; and if it does not, though it may appear that there was such force or fear, the punishment imposed by 48 G. 3. may be inflicted. Rea

v. Pearce.

Rex v. Robinson and another.

SURPLUSAGE.

174

321

415

1. 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.
2. Indictment, tried summer assizes 1 G. 4., stated, that the
prisoner, 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
པའི་སྙན་ was properly convicted on this indictment. Rex v. Gill. 431
Rex v. Goddard.

SURROGATE.

432, notis.

A false oath before a surrogate to procure a marriage licence, will not support a prosecution for perjury. Rex v. Foster.

THINGS, DESCRIPTION OF.

See INDICTMENT, 16, 17, 23, 29, 30, 34, 40, 41, 44.

THREATENING LETTERS.

459

398

1. Dropping a letter in a man's way in order that he may pick - it up is a sending it him. Rex v. Wagstaff. 52. The sending will be within the 27 G. 2. c.15., though the party saw the prisoner drop the letter, if the prisoner did edT ?not think the party knew him, and intended he should bus genot. vd det

Ibid.

2703. Though the contents may lead the party to suspect who wrote the letter, this will be no answer to the charge, unless

THREATENING LETTERS — continued.

they show that the prisoner did not mean to conceal him-
self.
Page 398
4. To bring the offence within the 27 G. 2. c. 15. the letter
must be sent to the person threatened, and it must be so
stated in the indictment. But it seems that sending the let-
ter to A. in order that he may deliver it to B., is a sending
to B. if the letter be delivered by A. to B. Rex v. Paddle. 484
TRANSPORTATION, RETURNING FROM.

1. An 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 indict-
ment or the certificate, under this section of the statute,
stating the former conviction to have been for felony only, is
insufficient. Rex v. Watson.

468

2. An indictment for being at large after sentence of transport-
ation for seven years, stated that the prisoner was convicted
of grand larceny within the benefit of clergy: the certifi-
cate was in the same form; and on case, the Judges held
both insufficient. Rex v. Sutcliffe.

469, notis.
3. Indictment for being at large after an order for transport-
ation. Variance in the statement of the condition upon
which the royal mercy had been extended; the condition
not being general, as stated, but specific; that the prisoner
should be transported to places specified. Rex v. Fitz-
patrick.

TREASON.

See COIN, 7, 8.

TREES.

512

1. Cutting down a tree is sufficient to bring the case within the
9 G. 1. c. 22., though the tree is not thereby totally destroyed.
Rex v. Taylor.

373

2. Dwarf apple and pear trees bearing fruit are trees within
the 9 G. 1. c. 22.

TRIAL.

See COUNTY.

Ibid.

The 26th Hen. 8. c. 6. s. 6., which makes felonies in Wales
triable in the next adjoining English county, extends to
felonies created since the 26 Hen. 8. Rex v. Wyndham. 197

VALUE.

1. Stealing re-issuable notes after they have been paid, and

VALUE-continued.

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.
Page 181

2. 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
collectively. Rex v. Forsyth.

274 3. An indictment for stealing a sheep or any other cattle must mention or ascribe to it some value; for unless the value exceed twelvepence, it will not be a capital offence. Rex v. Peel.

VARIANCE.

See SURPLUSAGE.

407

1. Indictment for committing an unnatural offence on one John Whyneard. Conviction held right, although it was proved the name was Winyard, and pronounced Winnyard Rex v. Foster.

412

2. 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 Justice 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. Lincoln.

421

3. Indictment for being at large after an order for transportation. Variance in the statement of the condition upon which the royal mercy had been extended; the condition not being general, as stated, but specific; that the prisoner should be transported to places specified. Rex v. Fitzpatrick.

512

4. Upon an indictment for a second offence against 42 G. 3. c. 107., by killing deer, objections were taken to the conviction for the first offence, viz. that it was not in the proper county, and that it was not correctly stated in the indictment for the second offence; and the conviction for the second offence held wrong. Rex v. Allen.

VENUE.

513

1. A denial by a servant when in the county of Stafford, of his

VENUE-continued.

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 there-
fore that the trial was properly had in the county of Salop.
Rex v. Hobson.

Page 56
2. 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. Rex v.
Taylor.

63

3. 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
the town. Rex v. Mellor and another.

144

4. 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 indict-
ment must state the offence to have been committed in the
inferior county. Rex v. Goff.

UTTERING.

179

1. Indictment on the 15 G. 2. c. 28. s. 3., charged that the
defendant uttered a counterfeited half crown to J. F., and
that at the time he so uttered it, he had about him another
counterfeit half crown, but it did not conclude with averring
that he was a common utterer of false money. The Judges
held, that such averment was unnecessary, and that the in-
dictment was sufficient to warrant the greater punishment
of the 3d section of the statute. Rex v. Smith.

5

2. An indictment on the 15 G. 2. c. 28., for uttering after a
conviction for a double offence, need not aver that defendant
was adjudged to be a common utterer: it is sufficient if it
states that he was tried and convicted of uttering to A., and
of uttering on the same day to B., and adjudged to be im-
prisoned a year. Rex v. Booth.

Rex v. Michael.

7

29

-3953. Persons privy to the uttering of a forged note by previous
oak concert with the utterer, but who were not present at the
gom time of uttering, or so near as to be able to afford any aid

UTTERING --- continued.

or assistance, held not principals, but accessaries before the fact. Rex v. Soares and others. of Page 25 4. If a person knowingly deliver a forged bank-note to another 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.

72

5. Forging a bill payable to the prisoner's own order, and uttering it without indorsement as a security for a debt, is a complete offence. Rex v. Birkett.

86

6. 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

7. Evidence of uttering a bill of exchange knowing it to be forged, and other forged bills upon the same house which were found upon the prisoner at the time of his apprehension, held, to be admissible as evidence of guilty knowledge. Rex v. Hough.

120

8. The fact of uttering a counterfeit note as a genuine note, held, to be tantamount to a representation that it was so Rex v. Freeth.

127

9. Upon an indictment for uttering a forged note. The Judges were of opinion that evidence was admissible of the prisoner having, at a prior time, uttered another forged note of the same manufacture, and also that other notes of the same fabrication had been found on the files of the Bank with the prisoner's hand-writing on the back of them, in order to show the prisoner's knowledge of the note mentioned in the indictment being a forgery. Rex v. Ball. 132 10. 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 uttering, although proved to be the associate of the woman on the day of the uttering, and to have had other bad money