likeness and similitude of the good, legal, and current cop. per money of this realm, called an halfpenny, then and there unlawfully and feloniously did make aud coin, against the form, &c. and against the peace, &c.; and was thereupon convicted, and prayed that the benefit of the statute in such case made and provided might be allowed to him the said A. B. and the same was allowed to him accordingly; and it was thereupon ordered by the said lastmentioned court, that he pay a fine of one shilling to our said lord the king, and be imprisoned in the gaol of our said lord the king for the said county, for the space of nine months, as appears by the records of my office, dated the day of in the year of our M. N. clerk of assize. Lord 306. Replication, denying the liability ratione tenura. And M. N. esquire, coroner and attorney of our said sovereign lord the king, in the court of our said lord the king, before the king himself, who prosecuteth for our said lord the king in this behalf, for our sovereign lord the king saith, that by any thing in the said plea above alleged, our said lord the king ought not to be barred from prosecuting the said indictment against the said inhabitants of the said parish of L. in the said county of M. because, protesting that he doth not acknowledge any thing in the said plea to be true for plea in this behalf, for our said lord the king saith, that the said E. F. by reason of his tenure of the said lands and tenements in the said plea mentioned, ought not to repair the said part of the said highway by the said indictment supposed to be out of repair, as in the said plea is above alleged; and this the said coroner and attorney of our said lord the king, for our said lord the king prayeth may be inquired of by the country; and the said A. B. and C. D. twe of the inhabitants of the said parish of for themselves and the rest of the inhabitants of the said parish. do the like. 307. Replication, traversing the custom alleged in the plea, that particular divisions of a parish ought to repair. And the said W. C. king's serjeant at law, attorney general of our said lord the king of his county palatine of Lancaster, who prosecutes for our said lord the king in this behalf, saith, that by reason of any thing by the said A. B. and C. D. above in pleading alleged, our said lord the king ought not to be precluded from maintaining his said indictment against the inhabitants of the said parish of L. because he saith, as before, that the inhabitants of the said parish of L. in the said county of Lancaster, the said parts of the said common king's highway so being in decay as aforesaid, ought to repair and amend when and as occasion may require, and that within the said parish there is not now, nor from time whereof the memory of man is not to the contrary, hath there been such ancient and laudable custom there during all the time aforesaid used and approved of, with respect to the repairing of all and every the king's common highways within the said parish, that would, but for the said supposed custom, be repairable by the inhabitants of the said parish of L. at large, as by the said A. B. and C. D. is above in pleading alleged; and this the said attorney-general, who prosecutes as aforesaid for our said lord the king, prays may be inquired of by the country, &c. 727 APPENDIX NOTES. P. 10. The stat. 13 G. 3. c. 31. s. 4. is extended to the united kingdom by stat. 44 G. 3. c. 92.; and by the latter stat. receivers of such stolen goods may be tried in the county in which they receive the same. P. 15. On the high seas, &c. The Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction to try offenders under the stat. 11 G. 1. c. 29., for procuring the destruction of a ship of which they were owners, unless there be evidence of an act of procurement done on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the court. R. v. Easterby and Macfarlane, East. P. C. Addenda, 26. P. 21, note (c). P. 25, note (n). See also Esser's case, East. P. C. 1125. P. 40, joinder of offences. It is no objection to the indictment, that the punishment for one of the offences is positive, and for the other discretionary, R. v. Hill Darley, 4 East. R. 174. P. 41. When a second offence is alleged in the same indictment, it ought to be prefaced with an ulterius præsentant, per Holt, C. J. Cranburn's case, St. Tr. 8 W. 3.; and an ulterius præsentant ought to be laid super sacramentum suum. Trobridge's s case, cited by Shower, in Cranburn's case. P. 45. Statute of additions. Presentments are within the stat. though they are not named, Burr. 2556. Leon. 200. P. 59, note (x). See 8 East, 174. P. 60. In a declaration for a nuisance, if no place be mentioned, the county in the margent will be intended, Warren v. Webbe, 1 Taunt. 379. aliter in an indictment, 1 Buls. 205. P. 64. Fifthly, &c. And also to direct the attention of the jury to the particular facts concerning which they are bound to inquire. P. 65. The keeping of a gaming house is an offence which may be described in general terms, since it consists of a multiplicity of facts, per Grose, J. Leach, 555. P. 85, note (d). See Sharwin's case, East. P. C. 341. and supra 405, note (c). P. 89. False pretences, &c. Any material variance between the pretence alleged and proved, will vitiate the indictment, as where the indictment averred that the defendant pretended that he had paid a sum of money into the Bank of England, and in evidence it appeared that he had merely pretended that the money had been paid into the bank. R. v. Plestow, 1 Camp. 194. P. 108. The substance of the matter sworn, &c. If the indictment undertake to set out the substance of the matter sworn to by the defendant upon his examination, the whole must in substance be proved, though several distinct perjuries be assigned. R. v. Leefe, 2 Camp. 134. P.108. Perjury. In an indictment for perjury on an affidavit to hold to bail, it is unnecessary to set out the jurat, R. v. Emden, 9 East. 437. and if it be set forth, and it thereby appear that the affidavit was sworn in another county, the variance will not be material, ib. P. 112. Assignment of perjury, &c. The indictment will be supported on motion in arrest of judgment, if any one assignment of perjury be good, though the rest are vicious. Rhodes, 2 Ld. Ray. 896. R. v. P. 121. Where the act uses several descriptive terms, &c. In an indictment under the stat. 39 G. 3. c. 58. which prohibits the taking more than is due for porterage, a basket cannot be described as a parcel, since the stat. mentions both; but if the defendant be charged under the stat. 30 G. 2. c. 24. for obtaining the money overcharged by false pretences, the variance would not be fatal. R. v. Douglass, 1 Camp. 212. P. 147, note (r), See R. v. Moors, 6 East. 419. P. 152, note (n). Add Gordon's case, Leach, 581. 3 T. R. 632. P. 189. Ownership. If the goods of a parish be stolen, they may be described in an indictment for sacrilege, as the goods of the churchwardens, R. v. Artly, York Sum. Ass. 1814. If the goods of an uncertificated bankrupt be stolen, they may be described as the property of the bankrupt, Webb v. Fox, 7 T. R. 391. If a feme sole be robbed, and marry before an indictment is found, the ownership should be described by her maiden name, Leach, 606. P. 191. Where property is taken from a servant, &c. If the indictment charge the defendant with obtaining the money of the master, and it appear that the money belonged to the servant, who was afterwards reimbursed by the master, the variance will be fatal. R. v. Douglass, 1 Camp. 213. Though it seems it would be otherwise if the servant, at the time, had in his hands an equal or a larger sum belonging to the master. P. 204. The court can only take notice of misrecitals of private acts of parliaments, where nul tiel record is pleaded, except as to the commencement, prorogations and sessions. 1 Lev. 206. Doug. 97. 1 Lord Ray. 318. I Salk. 330. P. 212, note (d). See also Emmott v. Flwood, 1 And. 49. Hinton v. Roffey, 3 Mod. 35. Foster's case, 11 Co. 58. R. v. Remnant, 5 T. R. 170. R. v. Jukes, 8 T. R. 536. P. 233. Comprehended two distinct offences. See Appendix, note to pr. 41. P. 241. Variance. The indictment set out an order as made by B. U. esquire, one of his majesty's justices, assigned, &c. for the county of C. the order appeared to have been made by B. U. clerk, a justice appointed for a particular district within the county, and the variance was holden to be fatal. R. v. Tanner & al. 1 Esp. 304. P. 316. Justification. See a plea of justification_to an information for obstructing the execution of a warrant. Trem. 273. P. 323. Default of a juror. The rule is now otherwise. See Leach, 618. 706. Fost. 76. P. 326. A person charged with an offence against one stat. may be found guilty of a more general offence against another stat. East P. C. 1021. See p. 217. P. 339. In a special verdict against a principal in the second degree, the jury must either find that he was present, aiding and abetting in terms, or that he did such acts as shew he was present, and constitute him an aider and abettor in point of law. R. v. Messenger, Appletree, and others, Kel. 77. 2 St. Tr. 591. R. v. Borthwick, Doug. 201. In the case of Royce, who was indicted under the stat. 1 G. 1. st. 2. c. 5. for feloniously beginning to demolish a dwelling house, the jury found, "that the said John Royce was then and there present, and did then and there encourage and abet the said persons unknown, in beginning to demolish and pull down the said dwellinghouse, by then and there shouting and using expressions to excite the said persons so to do, but that the said John Royce did not with force begin to demolish, or pull, or do any act with his own hands or person, otherwise than as aforesaid," and the court, after the matter had been argued twice, held that the verdict was sufficient, Burr. 2073. P. 342, note (a). See also Str. 853. 968. 1227. Burr. 930. Com. Dig. Ind. N. P. 383. See Kel. 32. P. 407. note (h). But in the case of R. v. Hill Darley, 4 East, 174. it was holden, that the case was within the statute, though the assault was committed at a subsequent time and place, and after abusive language between the parties in consequence of the winning. P. 535, pr. 166. In an indictment for uttering base money twice on the same day, it is not necessary to allege in the words of the statute, a second uttering on the same day, it is sufficient if the second uttering upon the face of the indictment appear to |