renewal of the original assault, and as the facts
of the case did not constitute a fresh pursuit, the
arrest was illegal. THE QUEEN v. MARSDEN 131

ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION-continued. | ARREST-continued.
serving on board British vessels, are amenable
to the provisions of British law.-An American
citizen, serving on board a British ship, caused
the death of another American citizen, serving on
board the same ship, under circumstances amount-
ing to manslaughter, the ship at the time being
in the river Garonne, within French territory, at
a place below bridges where the tide ebbed and
flowed and great ships went :-Held, that the ship
was within the Admiralty jurisdiction, and that
the prisoner was rightly tried and convicted at
the Central Criminal Court.-Quare, as to the
effect of the Merchant Shipping Act (17 & 18
Vict. c. 104), s. 267. THE QUEEN v. ANDERSON 161
AFFIDAVIT OF BANKER-How sworn
65

See PERJURY. 1.

-

AFFIDAVIT WITH BILL OF SALE—17 & 18 Vict. |
c. 36-Perjury-False Oath-Misdemeanour at
Common Law-Practice.] A. was indicted for
perjury in an affidavit made under the Bills of
Sale Act for the purpose of getting a bill of sale
filed. The indictment was in the ordinary form.
The affidavit was sworn before a commissioner for
taking affidavits in the Court of Queen's Bench.
A. was found guilty :-Held, that A.'s offence did
not constitute perjury, but that nevertheless the
conviction should be affirmed, because A. was
guilty of taking a false oath, which offence was
sufficiently charged in the indictment, and was
under the circumstances a common law misde-
meanour, to the punishment for which he might
be sentenced. THE QUEEN v. HODGKISS
AGREEMENT TO COMMIT CIVIL WRONG

See CONSPIRACY.

-

212

274

AIDING AND ABETTING-Attempt-Practice

See ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CRIME. [221
AMENDMENT OF INDICTMENT-14 & 15 Vict.
c. 100, s. 1—Information-Game-9 Geo. 4, c. 69,
8. 1.] The judge has power, under the 14 & 15
Vict. c. 100, s. 1, to amend an indictment for
perjury, describing the justices before whom the
perjury was committed as justices for a county,
where they are proved to be justices for a borough
only. An information, under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 69,
s. 1, for entering land for the purpose of taking
game, is sufficient to give the justices before whom
it is laid jurisdiction to hear the charge, although
it does not allege that the entry was for the
purpose of taking game there. THE QUEEN v.
WESTERN
122
158, 315

ANIMALS FERÆ NATURÆ -Larceny
See LARCENY. 1, 2.

ANTEDATED DEED-Forgery

See FORGERY. 2.

APPRENTICE-Perjury

-

-

-

200

49

See PERJURY. 5.
ARREST-Assault-Resistance.] The prisoner
assaulted a police constable in the execution of
his duty. The constable went for assistance, and
after an interval of an hour returned with three
other constables, when he found that the prisoner
had retired into his house, the door of which was
closed and fastened; after another interval of
fifteen minutes the constables forced open the
door, entered, and arrested the prisoner, who
wounded one of them in resisting his apprehen-
sion:-Held, that, as there was no danger of any

2. - Resistance-11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, schedule
(0.1).] A magistrate's warrant of commitment
upon a conviction for a penalty, following the form
given in the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, schedule (O. 1),
and addressed "to the constable of" A., can only
be executed by the parish constable, and not by a
county police constable stationed at A. THE
QUEEN v. SANDERS

-

ARSON-Indictment-Averment of ownership
See MALICIOUS INJURY. 2.
Malicious injury

See MALICIOUS INJURY. 1, 4.
ASSAULT-Arrest-Resistance

See ARREST. 1, 2.

75

[344
307, 338

75, 131

[334

ATTEMPT AT RAPE-Evidence-Contradiction
See CONTRADICTION OF WITNESS.
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CRIME-Indictment for
Felony-Aiding and Abetting-Conviction for an
Attempt-14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 9.] An indict-
ment charged H. with rape, and W. with aiding
and abetting in the rape. The jury found H. and
W. guilty of misdemeanour; H. of attempting to
commit a rape, and W. of aiding H. in the
attempt.-It was contended that this verdict
amounted to an acquittal of W., as the case did
not fall within s. 9 of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, by
which a person indicted for a crime may be found
guilty of an attempt to commit the crime.-The
objection was overruled :-Held, that the convic-
tion should be affirmed. THE QUEEN v. HAPGOOD

- Payment of money-Forgery
See FORGERY. 4.
AUTREFOIS CONVICT—Assault-24 & 25 Vict. c.
100, s. 45.] A conviction for assault by justices
in petty sessions, at the instance of the person
assaulted, and imprisonment consequent thereon,
are not, either at common law or under the 24 &
25 Vict. c. 100, s. 45, a bar to an indictment for
manslaughter of the person assaulted, should he
subsequently die from the effects of the assault
(Kelly, C.B., dissenting). THE QUEEN v. MORRIS

[90

AVERMENT Jurisdiction-Perjury

See PERJURY. 2.

BANKER'S AFFIDAVIT, HOW SWORN
See PERJURY. 1.

BANK NOTES, FORGERY OF

290 BRIDGE, REPAIR OF—continued.

65

133

See FORGERY. 3.
BANKRUPT-Feme Covert-Husband and Wife
-Evidence-12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 233.] A
married woman having been adjudicated a bank-
rupt upon her own petition, in which she de-
scribed herself as a widow, was afterwards convicted
under the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 221, of having
embezzled her property:-Held, that the convic-
tion was wrong, as the property was her husband's.
Held, also, by Kelly, C.B., Martin, B., and Shee, J.,
that examinations taken before a commissioner in
bankruptcy are admissible as evidence against
the persons examined upon a criminal charge.
THE QUEEN v. ROBINSON
BASTARDY SUMMONS Jurisdiction
See PERJURY. 3, 4.
BIGAMY-Marriage before Registrar-Misnomer
-6 & 7 Wm. 4, c. 85, ss. 4, 42.] The prisoner,
having a wife living, was married to another
woman in the presence of the registrar, describing
himself not as E. R., his true name, but as B. R.
There was no evidence to shew that the second
wife knew that his Christian name was mis-
described:-Held, that the prisoner was guilty of
bigamy. THE QUEEN v. EDWARD REA

-

80
119, 320

365

2. Second Marriage invalid independently
of the first-24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 57.] Where
a person, already bound by an existing marriage,
goes through with another person a form of
marriage known to and recognized by the law as
capable of producing a valid marriage, for the
purpose of a pretended and fictitious marriage,
such person is guilty of bigamy, notwithstanding
any special circumstances which, independently
of the bigamous character of the marriage, may
constitute a legal disability in the parties, or
make the form of marriage resorted to inappli-
cable to their case. The prisoner, having a wife
living, went through the ceremony of marriage
with another woman, who was within the pro-
hibited degrees of affinity; so that the second
marriage, even if not bigamous, would have been
void under 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 54, s. 2:-Held, that
the prisoner was guilty of bigamy.-Reg. v. Fan-
ning (17 Ir. C. L. 289; 10 Cox, Cr. C. 411) dis-
approved. THE QUEEN v. HENRY ALLEN 367
3. Absence for seven years
1, 196
See PRESUMPTION OF DEATH. 1, 2.
BILLS OF SÅLE ACT, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36—
Affidavit-Perjury -
212

-

See AFFIDAVIT WITH BILL OF SALE.

BIRTH-Concealment-Evidence

See CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.

-

244

cartways," &c., &c. :-Held, that "county bridges"
includes hundred bridges, and consequently that
hundred bridges are not highways under the
Highway Act, 1835, and therefore that hundreds
are not relieved by that Act from liability to
repair hundred bridges.-Semble, that even if
hundred bridges were not included in "county
bridges," hundreds would not be relieved by the
Highway Act, 1835, from their liability to repair
hundred bridges, as there are no negative words
in the statute to relieve hundreds from that
liability. THE QUEEN v. THE UPPER HALF
HUNDRED OF CHART AND Longbridge
"BUILDING" -

237
- 338

-

See EMBEZZLEMENT. 1,3,4. [29, 41, 177
COIN-Proof of previous conviction -
214
See PREVIOUS CONVICTION. 3.
COINING-Having possession of Coining Tools-
Lawful Authority or Excuse-24 & 25 Vict. c. 99,
8. 24-Felony-Guilty Intent.] 24 & 25 Vict.
c. 99, s. 24, enacts, that "whosoever without
lawful authority or excuse (the proof whereof
shall lie on the party accused), shall knowingly
make or mend, or begin or proceed to make or
mend, or buy, or sell, or have in his custody or
possession," any die impressed with the re-
3 K 2

BRIDGE, REPAIR OF-Repair by Hundred-
Highway Act, 1835 (5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 50), 8. 5–
Construction" Highways".
'-"County Bridge".
"Hundred Bridge."] The Highway Act, 1835,
provides for the repair of highways in a specified
manner not at the expense of the hundreds. By
8. 5, highways," in the construction of the
statute, "shall be understood to mean all roads,
bridges (except county bridges), carriageways,

4

COINING-continued.
semblance of either side of any current coin,
shall be guilty of felony.-Indictment under this
section that the prisoner "knowingly and without
lawful excuse feloniously" had in his possession
dies impressed with the resemblance of the sides
of a sovereign.-The prisoner ordered dies, im-
pressed with the resemblance of the sides of a
sovereign, of the maker. The maker gave in-
formation to the police, who communicated with
the authorities of the Mint. The latter autho-
rities, through the police, gave the maker permis-
sion to give them to the prisoner. He did so, and
they were found in the prisoner's possession:-
Held, first, that it was necessary in the indictment
to negative lawful authority or excuse, notwith-
standing that the burden of proof lay upon the
accused secondly, that the word "excuse" in-
cludes "authority," and therefore the indictment
was good thirdly, that there was no evidence to
go to the jury of lawful authority or excuse;
fourthly, that the prisoner being knowingly in
possession of the dies, had a sufficient guilty
knowledge to constitute felony, whatever his in-
tention as to their use might be. THE QUEEN v.
HARVEY
284

COINING TOOLS-Possession of

See COINING.

-

-

284

COMPETENCE OF WITNESS-Evidence-Joint

Indictment and Trial-One Prisoner called as
Witness for Another.] Where two prisoners are
indicted and tried together, one is not a com-
petent witness for the other. THE QUEEN v.
PAYNE -
349

2. -Joint Indictment and Trial-Wife of
One Prisoner called as Witness for Another.]
Where two prisoners are indicted and tried to-
gether, the wife of one is not a competent witness
for the other. THE QUEEN v. JAMES THOMPSON,
WILLIAM DANZEY, AND ABRAHAM HIDE

377

CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH—continued.
house, and was used by the occupiers of that and
three other houses. There was no thoroughfare
into or through the yard, and no entrance into it
except by a narrow passage from the street. The
prisoner did not live in any of the four houses
that had the use of the yard, and she must have
passed from the street into the yard in order to
throw the body over the wall. A person looking
over the wall from the yard would see the body,
but persons going through the yard, or using it
in the ordinary way, would not see the body.
The field was a grass-field used by a butcher for
grazing. The field had no gate except from the
butcher's yard, and there was no public path
through the field, nor any path in the field that
would take any one within sight of the body.
Persons going into the field in their ordinary
occupation, would not go near the body or see it,
nor would they see it unless they went up to the
part of the wall where the body lay. The body
was found by chance by a child. There was no-
thing on or over the body, and nothing to conceal
it except its situation:-Held, that there was
evidence to go to the jury of a "secret dispo-
sition" of the body under s. 60 of 24 & 25 Vict.
c. 100. THE QUEEN v. BROWN

244

The

CONFESSION - Evidence - Admissibility.]
prisoner was called up by his master, and told :
"You are in the presence of two police officers;
and I should advise you that to any question
that may be put to you you will answer truth-
fully, so that, if you have committed a fault, you
may not add to it by stating what is untrue.”
The master afterwards added; "Take care; we
know more than you think." The prisoner there-
upon made a statement:-Held, that such state-
ment was admissible against him on his trial for
larceny. THE QUEEN v, JARVIS

2.

96

Evidence-Admissibility.] The pri-
soners, two children, one aged eight and the
other a little older, were tried for attempting to
obstruct a railway train. It was proved that, the
mother of the prisoners and a policeman being
present, after they had been apprehended, the
mother of one of the prisoners said: “You had
better, as good boys, tell the truth;" whereupon
both the prisoners confessed :-Held, that this
confession was admissible in evidence against the
prisoners. THE QUEEN v. REEVE AND HANCOCK 362
CONSENT-Fraud-Rape

See RAPE. 1.

-

-

-

156

Girl under ten-Carnal knowledge 10
See ATTEMPT TO HAVE CARNAL KNOW-

LEDGE.

Idiot-Rape
See RAPE. 2.

39

3. Incompetency-Withdrawal of Evi-
dence from Jury.] The evidence of an incom-
petent witness may be withdrawn from the jury
upon the incompetency appearing during his
examination-in-chief, although he has been ex-
amined previously on the voir dire and pronounced
to be competent. THE QUEEN v. WHITEHEAD 33
CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH-Evidence-24 & 25
Vict. c. 100, s. 60-" Secret Disposition of Dead
Body of Child." Indictment for endeavouring
to conceal the birth of a child by secretly dis- CONSPIRACY-Agreement to commit Civil Wrong
posing of the dead body thereof. S. 60 of 24 &-Fraud on Partner in taking Accounts on Disso-
25 Vict. c. 100, enacts that "if any woman shall lution of Partnership.] A fraudulent agreement
be delivered of a child, every person who shall by by a member of a partnership with third persons,
any secret disposition of the dead body of the wrongfully to deprive his partner by false entries
child, endeavour to conceal the birth thereof, and by false documents of all interest in some of
shall be guilty of a misdemeanour The the partnership property on taking accounts for
prisoner put the dead body of her child over a the division of the property on the dissolution of
wall 4 feet high, which divided a yard from a the partnership, is a conspiracy, although the
field. The yard was at the back of a public offence was completed before the passing of 31 &

CONSPIRACY-continued.

CRIMINAL ASSAULT-continued.

See CONTRADICTION OF WITNESS.

241

[334

32 Vict. c. 116, by which a partner can be cri- Held, that the prisoner might be properly con-
minally convicted for feloniously stealing partner- victed of a common assault, on the ground that
ship property. THE QUEEN v. WARBURTON 274 the indictment charged two distinct misdemean-
CONSTABLE-Refusal to aid in the Execution of ours, viz., of assaulting and also of carnally know-
his Duty-Indictment.] An indictment for re-ing D., and that the prisoner might be found
fusing to aid a constable in the execution of his guilty of either of them. THE QUEEN v. GUTHRIE
duty, and to prevent an assault made upon him
by persons in his custody with intent to resist CROSS-EXAMINATION-Witness-Contradiction
their lawful apprehension, need not shew that
the apprehension was lawful, nor aver that the
refusal was on the same day and year as the
assault, or that the assault which the defendant
refused to prevent was the same as that which
the prisoners made upon the constable; neither
is it any objection that the assault is alleged to
have been made with intent to resist their lawful
apprehension by persons already in custody. THE
QUEEN v. CALEB SHERLOCK
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION

20

-

136

CONTINUANCE OF LIFE-Presumption - 1, 196
See PRESUMPTION OF DEATH. 1, 2.

CONTINUOUS ACT-Larceny

See LARCENY. 1.

CONTINUOUS TAKING-Larceny

See LARCENY. 3.

-

315

172

DAMAGING ENGINE

-

See MALICIOUS INJURY. 3.
DEATH - Presumption after absence
years

of seven
- 1, 196

See PRESUMPTION OF DEATH. 1, 2.

DEED-Forgery-Antedating
See FORGERY. 2.

-

200

DEPOSITION BEFORE JUSTICE-Evidence-Ad-
mission, after Death of Witness, of Deposition taken
before Justice-Signature by Justice-11 & 12 Vict.
c. 42, 8. 17-Form of Indictment-Uncertainty-
CONTRADICTION OF WITNESS-Indecent Assault Surplusage.] Section 17 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42,
-Attempt at Rape-Cross-examination of Prosecu- enacts that justices, before they commit an accused
trix-Previous Connection with other Men-Evi- person, shall "take the statement (M.). of
dence.] The prosecutrix in an indictment for those who shall know the facts of the case, and
an indecent assault, which on the facts alleged shall put the same into writing, and such deposi-
amounted, in substance, to an attempt at rape, was
tions shall be read over to and signed respectively
asked in cross-examination whether she had not by the witnesses who shall have been so examined,
previously had connection with a man other than and shall be signed also by the justice or justices
the prisoner, and denied it:-Held, that she taking the same. and if, upon the trial of the
could not be contradicted. THE QUEEN v. HOLMES
person so accused, it shall be proved. . that
AND FURNESS
334
any person whose deposition shall have been
24, 182, 241, 363 taken as aforesaid, is dead then, if such de-
See PREVIOUS CONVICTION.
position purport to be signed by the justice by or
COUNTY BRIDGE-Repair by hundred
before whom the same purports to have been
See BRIDGE, Kepair of.
taken, it shall be lawful to read such deposition
as evidence in such prosecution, without further
COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED—Juris-
diction-17 & 18 Vict. c. 78, s. 1.] No case can
proof thereof." The reference (M.) is to a schedule
be stated for the opinion of this Court except upon tions, commencing with a heading containing the
of the Act where there is a form for these deposi-
some question of law arising on the trial. Where,
names of the witnesses examined, and concludes
therefore, the prisoner had pleaded guilty, and
"the above depositions of C. D. and E. F. were
the question asked was whether the prisoner's act
on the day
as described in the depositions supported the in- taken and [sworn] before me at
dictment, the Court held that they had no juris-immediately the signature of the justice-Held,
and year first above mentioned," and then follows
diction to consider the case. THE QUEEN v. CLARK

See DISCREDITING WITNESS.
CRIMINAL ASSAULT-Indictment-Charge in one
Count of assaulting and also of carnally knowing
a Girl between the Age of Ten and Twelve Years-once only at the end of all the depositions in the
Verdict of Common Assault-Practice-Duplicity.]
Indictment, that the prisoner "in and upon one
D., a girl above the age of ten years and under the
age of twelve years. unlawfully did make an
assault, and her, the said D., did then unlawfully
and carnally know and abuse, against the form of
the statute," &c., &c. The offence of carnally
knowing the girl was disproved, but the jury
found the prisoner guilty of a common assault:-

form given in the schedule, that one of these de-
positions was inadmissible in evidence under s. 17
after the death of the witness making it, although..
no part of it was on the sheet signed by the jus-
tice.-An indictment charged A. with having
made a false declaration before a justice that he
had lost a pawnbroker's ticket, whereas he had
not lost the ticket, "but had sold, lent, or de-
posited it with one" C.:-Held, that the indict-

"

DEPOSITION BEFORE JUSTICE-continued.
ment was not bad for uncertainty, because the
words "had sold, lent, or deposited it were
mere surplusage, and therefore an error in them
did not affect the indictment. THE QUEEN v.
PARKER
225

-

DISCREDITING WITNESS-Evidence-Witnesses
-Impeaching Credit.] In order to impeach the
character of a witness for veracity, witnesses may
be called to prove that his general reputation is
such that they would not believe him upon his
oath. THE QUEEN v. BROWN AND HEDLEY 70
DISORDERLY HOUSE.] The defendants, as master
and mistress, resided in a house to which men
and women resorted for the purpose of prostitu-
tion, but no indecency or disorderly conduct was
perceptible from the exterior of the house-Held,
that the defendants were guilty of keeping a dis-
orderly house. THE QUEEN v. PETER RICE AND
MARY WILTON

DOCUMENTS-Notice to produce

See NOTICE TO PRODUCE.

DUPLICITY-Pleading-Assault
See CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

DUTY OF FATHER

-

See ABANDONMENT OF INFANT. 1.

21

103

241

311

DYING DECLARATION-Evidence-"No present
hope of recovery."] On a trial for murder a written
declaration of the deceased was put in evidence
for the prosecution. The declaration was made
on oath to a magistrate's clerk, about thirteen
hours before death. The clerk asked the de-
ceased before he took down her statement, whether
she felt she was likely to die? She said, “I
think so, from the shortness of my breath." Her
breath was then extremely short. The clerk said,
"Is it with the fear of death before you that you
make these statements, and have you any present
hope of your recovery ?"-She said, "None." The
clerk then wrote out her statement, and added to
it the above conversation, in the form of a state-
ment by the deceased, but he omitted the word
present" before "hope." He then read over
to the deceased what he had written, and she then
added the words "at present" before "hope," and
signed the declaration :-Held, that the statement
was not admissible in evidence, as it did not ap-
pear to have been made under a settled hopeless
expectation of death, inasmuch as the deceased
had expressly qualified the words "no hope," by
inserting before them the words "at present."
THE QUEEN V. JENKINS
187
ELECTION-Corrupt practices-Commissioners-
Perjury

66

-

248

See STATEMENT BEFORE ELECTION COM-

| EMBEZZLEMENT—continued.
that, where the offence shall relate to any money
or any valuable security, it shall be sufficient to
allege the embezzlement, &c., to be of money,
without specifying any particular coin or valuable
security, and that such allegation so far as regards
the description of the property, shall be sustained,
if the offender shall be proved to have embezzled,
or fraudulently applied or disposed of, any amount,
although the particular species of coin or valuable
security of which such amount was composed
shall not be proved, or if he shall be proved to
posed of, any piece of coin, or any valuable secu-
have embezzled, or fraudulently applied or dis-
such piece of coin or valuable security may have
rity, or any portion of the value thereof, although
the value thereof should be returned to the party
been delivered to him in order that some part of
delivering the same, or to some other person, and
such part shall have been returned accordingly:-
Held, that this enactment did not justify an alle-
gation in an indictment of the embezzlement of
money, where a cheque only had been embezzled,
and there was no proof that the prisoner had ever
cashed it. THE QUEEN v. KEENA

-

113

3.- Clerk, or Servant.] A person who is
employed to get orders for goods, and to receive
payment for them, but who is at liberty to get the
orders and receive the money where and when he
thinks proper, being paid by a commission on the
goods sold, is not a clerk or servant within the
meaning of the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 68. THE
QUEEN v. BOWERS

--

41

4. "Clerk or Servant" -Treasurer of
Friendly Society-24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 68.] A.
was treasurer of a friendly society, whose rules
directed that all the moneys of the society should
be paid to the treasurer, and that he should make
no payments except on an order signed by the
secretary, and countersigned by the chairman, or
a trustee, and that he should give security. By
another rule, all the moneys of the society were
vested in trustees. A. was a member of the so-
ciety, but received no payment for filling the office
of treasurer:-Held, on an indictment against A.,
as clerk and servant of the trustees of the society,
for embezzling money which he had received as
treasurer, that A. was not the "clerk or servant"
of the trustees within s. 68 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96.
THE QUEEN v. TRYEE
177

-

-

5. Indictment-Evidence-Three Acts of
Embezzlement in one Indictment-24 & 25 Vict.
c. 96, s. 71-31 & 32 Vict. c. 116, s. 1.] The pri-
soner was a member of a co-partnership. It was
his duty to receive money for the co-partnership,
and once a week to render an account and pay over
the gross amount received during the previous
week. During each of three several weeks, within
six months, the prisoner received various small
sums, and failed to account for them at the end of
the week, or to pay over the gross amount, but
embezzled the money-Held, that he might pro-
perly be charged with embezzling the weekly ag-
gregates; that three acts of embezzlement of such
weekly aggregates within six months might be
charged and proved under one indictment; and
that evidence of the smalls sums received during
each week was admissible to shew how these aggre-
gates were made up. THE QUEEN v. BALLS 328