CASES DETERMINED BY THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED IN EASTER TERM, XXIX VICTORIA. 1866 April 28. THE QUEEN v. JOHN PARSONS. Returning from Transportation-Certificate of previous conviction 5 Geo. 4, c. 84, s. 24; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1. The certificate of a previous conviction required by 5 Geo. 4, c. 84, s. 24, is sufficient, by virtue of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1, if it purports to be signed by an officer having the custody of the records, although that officer is therein described as the deputy-clerk of the peace of a borough. The certificate need not aver that the quarter sessions at which the prisoner was convicted were held by the recorder. THE following case was stated by Pigott, B.:— The prisoner was tried before me, at the last assizes for the city of Worcester and county of the same city, for being at large at St. Helen's, in Worcester, without lawful excuse, before the expiration of the term of fifteen years, for which term he had been transported at Birmingham quarter sessions on the 20th of October, 1854. The certificate of conviction was produced (1), signed by T. R. T. (1) The certificate was as follows:- aforesaid, was in due form of law tried and convicted on a certain indictment against him, for that he, on the 11th day of December, A.D. 1853, the dwelling house of Benjamin Woodhouse feloniously did break and enter, and two dresses, two shawls, one yard of silk, ten handkerchiefs, four waistcoats, one pair of trowsers, ten shirts, one scarf, 1866 v. PARSONS. Hodgson, and with the following statement appended to the signature: "deputy-clerk of the peace for the said borough of Bir- THE QUEEN mingham, and having the custody of the records of the said quarter sessions." The witness who produced the certificate proved that one Edmunds was the clerk of the peace, but that he did not usually act, and that Mr. Hodgson was the person who acted as clerk of the court in court. It was further proved by John Suckling, who is a member of the town council of Birmingham, that he was present at a meeting of the town council for the borough of Birmingham, when Mr. Hodgson was elected deputyclerk of the peace of the borough; that he believed Mr. Edmunds sanctioned that election; and that Birmingham is a borough under the municipal corporation act. Mr. Griffits, on behalf of the prisoner, objected to the certificate on two grounds: First, that it was not signed by the proper officer (under the 5 Geo. 4, c. 84, s. 24) (1); and, secondly, that it and one top-coat, of the goods and chattels of the said Benjamin Woodhouse, then and there feloniously did steal, and was thereupon ordered by the Court to be transported for the term of fifteen years. Given under my hand this sixth day of March, 1866. T. R. T. Hodgson, deputy-clerk of the peace for the said borough of Birmingham, and having the custody of the records of the said quarter sessions. By the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1, it is enacted that, "Whenever by any act now (1) The 5 Geo. 4, c. 84, s. 24, is as in force or hereafter to be in force, any follows:-"The clerk of the court or certificate, official or public document, or other officer having the custody of the document or proceeding of any corporarecords of the court where such sentence tion or joint-stock or other company, or order of transportation or banishment or any certified copy of any document, shall have been passed or made, shall, bye-law, entry in any register or other at the request of any person on his book, or of any other proceeding, shall Majesty's behalf, make out and give a be receivable in evidence of any particertificate in writing, signed by him, cular in any court of justice, or before containing the effect and substance only any legal tribunal, or either house of (omitting the formal part) of every in- parliament, or any committee of either dictment and conviction of such offence house, or in any judicial proceeding, and of the sentence or order for his or the same shall respectively be admitted her transportation or banishment (not in evidence, provided they respectively taking for the same more than six purport to be sealed or impressed with shillings and eightpence), which certifi- a stamp, or sealed and signed, or signed ought to shew on the face of it that there were justices of the peace present at the quarter sessions where the conviction took place. I overruled the objections; and the prisoner was convicted: but judgment was respited for the purpose of taking the opinion of the Court on these objections. If the Court should be of opinion that either of these objections is valid, then a verdict of acquittal is to be entered; if the Court think that neither objection is good, the conviction is to stand. This case was argued on the 28th of April, 1866, before Pollock, C.B., Bramwell, B., Byles, J., Pigott, B., and Lush, J. Harington, for the prisoner. The clerk of the peace for a borough is appointed under the municipal corporation acts, which give no power to appoint a deputy; and there could not, therefore, be such an officer as the deputy-clerk of the peace for a borough. Neither is there any evidence that Mr. Hodgson had the custody of the records. [POLLOCK, C.B. The legal inference is that he had the custody of them, seeing that it is proved that he acted as clerk of the court in court.] The certificate must mean that Mr. Hodgson had the custody of the records as deputy-clerk of the peace; and, as there can be no such officer, he cannot have the custody of the records. [POLLOCK, C.B. It is unnecessary to discuss the question whether there can be a deputy-clerk of the peace in a borough, as we are all of opinion that the statement that Mr. Hodgson acted as the clerk of the court, and had the custody of the records, is a sufficient compliance with the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1.] Secondly, the certificate is bad, because it does not aver that the sessions were held by the recorder. By the 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 76, s. 105, in a borough the recorder is to be the sole judge of the alone, as required, or impressed with a cial character of the person appearing to have signed the same, and without any further proof thereof in every case in which the original record could have been received in evidence." court of quarter sessions; but by s. 103, in the absence of the Underdown, for the prosecution, was not called upon. POLLOCK, C.B. We are all of opinion that the certificate was sufficient, and was sufficiently authenticated, and that the prisoner was properly convicted. BRAMWELL, B. If it had been shewn that a person without any de facto official character had signed the certificate, our decision. might have been different; but here we have a de facto officer, who, by virtue of that office, has the custody of the records equally as if he were the officer de jure. Conviction affirmed. Attorney for prosecution: The Solicitor to the Treasury. 1866 THE QUEEN V. PARSONS. THE QUEEN v. PAYNE. Prison-breach-The Prison Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 126), s. 37. The Prison Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 126), s. 37, which forbids the conveyance into any prison, with intent to facilitate the escape of a prisoner, of any mask, dress, or other disguise, or of any letter, or of any other article or thing, includes a crowbar. THE following case was stated by the Chairman of quarter sessions for the county of Surrey : At the general quarter session of the peace, holden by adjournment at Saint Mary Newington, in and for the county of Surrey, on the 20th of March, 1860, Elizabeth Payne was tried and convicted on an indictment charging her with conveying into the common gaol at Newington a crowbar, with intent to facilitate the escape of a prisoner therein being. The indictment was framed under section 37 of the Prison Act, 1865, which is as follows:-"Every person who aids any prisoner in escaping or April 28. 1866 attempting to escape from any prison, or who, with intent to THE QUEEN facilitate the escape of any prisoner, conveys or causes to be con v. PAYNE. veyed into any prison any mask, dress, or other disguise, or any letter, or any other article or thing, shall be guilty of felony, and on conviction be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for a term not exceeding two years." The counsel for the prisoner objected that a crowbar did not come within such section; and the Court reserved such point for the decision of the Court for the consideration of Crown Cases Reserved. This case was argued on the 28th of April, 1866, before Pollock, C.B., Bramwell, B., Byles, J., Pigott, B., and Lush, J. J. Thompson, for the prisoner. The words " any other article or thing" must be taken to mean any other article or thing ejusdem generis with "mask, dress, disguise, or letter." In Kitchen v. Shaw (1), which arose under the 6 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 4, it was held that the words, " or other person," following after an enumeration of divers kinds of workmen, must be confined to persons of the same description as those before enumerated. So also in Sandiman v. Breach (2), Lord Tenterden states that "where general words follow particular ones, the rule is to construe them as applicable to persons ejusdem generis." The 43rd section of the former act (the 4 Geo. 4, c. 64), had after the words "mask, vizor, or other disguise," the words "or any instrument or arms." The statute in question, which repeals that section, leaves out the words "instrument or arms" altogether. [POLLOCK, C.B. It substitutes the more general words “ article or thing." 'any PIGOTT, B. Clearly shewing thereby that the legislature intended to embrace more things than were included under the old act.] It was unnecessary to specify mask, dress, disguise, or letter, if the words "article or thing" were intended to include everything. Straight, for the prosecution, was not called upon. (1) C Ad. & E. 729. See also Reg. v. Silvester, 33 L. J. (M. C.) 79. |