17. Where the defendant was in the habit of employing his son to write letters in his name, and a letter without signature, but in the son's handwriting, and bearing a post-mark, was tendered in evidence:-Held, that it was inadmissible. Barton v. Hutchinson,

712 18. Where a book was kept privately by the defendant, and was made up from certain slips of paper, on which the daily transactions of his business were entered, and there was no proof that these were accurately copied by him:-Held, that the book was not admissible as evidence for the defendant. Ellis v. Cowne,

719

20. A letter signed by procuration is admissible, if unexplained, to prove an admission of the authorship of a former letter, Ibid.

21. In an action by the payee against the maker of a promissory note for 485l., in which the defendant had pleaded that he did not make the note, it was proposed, in addition to proof of defendant's handwriting of the signature of the note, to put in an unstamped agreement between the same parties, of the same date as the note, in which it was recited, that the

one had bought of the other the lease of a public house for 485., and had given a note for that sum as a security for the purchase-money, and by which it was agreed, that the vendor should hold the lease of the house till the purchase-money was paid:-Held, that, as the agreement was one that ought to have borne a stamp, it was not receivable in evidence, even for the purpose of proving the admission contained in the recital. Keane v. Janes, 725

22. Evidence, that, a week before the trial, the parents of an attesting witness to a deed were asked where he was, and stated, that he was in America, is reasonable evidence that he is without the jurisdiction of the Court, so as to let in proof of his handwriting to the attestation of the deed. Austin v. Rumsey, 736

23. To prove the handwriting of a defendant, named F. W., to a letter, a clerk of a banker stated that a person of that name kept an account with the banker, and had signed his name in a book and drawn cheques, which the witness had paid, and that he believed the letter to be of the handwriting of that person. The defendant's attorney proved that the defendant had desired him to address him at No. 12, Tower-street; and another witness proved that he had written two letters to "Mr. F. W., 12, Tower-street," and had received answers, and that he believed the letter offered in evidence to be of the same handwriting as the answers he had received to his letters:-Held, sufficient proof that the letter offered in evidence was in the defendant's handwriting. Murieta v. Wolfhagen, 744

24. In an action against S. it was proved, that a witness went to a tavern and asked a waiter if S. was there; and on a person coming out to the witness, the latter asked him who

he was, and he said his name was S. The witness had not known the defendant before, and had never seen him since:-Held, that this was some proof that this person was S., and that the conversation between the witness and this person was receivable in evidence. Reynolds v. Staines, 745

25. A., a plaintiff in a cause in the county court, was indicted for perjury there, in respect of a paper which was produced on the trial there. Mr. M., his then attorney, was subpoenaed to produce this paper on the present trial; he stated that he had received it from A., for the purpose of conducting that cause as A.'s attorney, but that he claimed a lien on it:Held, that he ought not to produce it, and that his possession of it was the possession of A. Reg. v. Hankins, 823

26. In an action on a bond, the defendant pleaded that he was induced to execute it by the fraud, covin, and misrepresentation of A., one of the plaintiffs, and D. It appeared that the money for which the bond was given was part of the property included in the marriage-settlement of the defendant's brother, which was advanced to him by the two plaintiffs, who were the trustees. For the defendant it was proposed to put in the answer of A. in Chancery, to shew that D. had committed a breach of trust with respect to some other trustmoney:-Held, that the answer could not be given in evidence for this purpose. Lord Courtenay v. Haworth,

not make immediately after the facts he deposed to. Ibid.

29. Parties are not entitled to put in, as part of their case, documents handed to a witness on cross-examination by the opposite party to depose to their nature. Semble, counsel are not entitled to see letters handed ot a witness under like circumstances, to depose to the handwriting. Collier v. Nokes, 1012

30. It is primâ facie proof of identity if a name is written up in an auction-room, and the auctioneer is addressed by the bye-standers by that Ibid. 31. The Court will not take judicial notice of the hours of the day in the calendar. İbid.

name.

32. A letter from one of the parties, proposing a compromise, is not a privileged communication if tendered as evidence that a compromise had actually been effected. Ibid.

33. Whether a notary may be asked as to the general course of business among notaries in London. Lysaght v. Bryant, 1016

EVIDENCE IN REPLY.

Where A. was called by the defendant to prove conversations between the plaintiff and the agents of the defendant; and after the defendant's case had closed, it was proposed to call B. on the part of the plaintiff, to contradict A.:-Held, that, notwithstanding the course of cross-examination pursued by the defendant's counsel had been such as to give notice of the defendant's case, B. might be called upon to contradict A. as to what took place between the plaintiff and the agents of the defendant, on any occasion on which A. had admitted in his evidence that B. was present. Cope v. Thames Haven Dock Company,

757

EXAMINATION BEFORE MA

GISTRATES.

See CROSS-EXAMINATION, 3.

1. In a case of felony the committing magistrate is not bound to bind over all the witnesses who have been examined before him in support of the charge, but only those whose evidence is material to the charge; but it is very desirable that all that has been given in evidence before the magistrate should be transmitted to the judge. Reg. v. Smith, 207

2. If a person in whose possession stolen property is found give a reasonable account of how he came by it, and refer to some known person as the person from whom he received it, the examining magistrate should have that person before him, as his evidence may either entirely exonerate the accused, or may prove, that, in addition to his possession of the goods, the accused has been giving a false account of how he came by them, Ibid.

3. Everything that occurs before a magistrate on the examination of a person on a charge of felony should be taken down in the depositions, if it is material to the case. Reg. v. Weller, 223

4. Where, during the examination of a witness before a magistrate, in support of a charge of felony, the prisoner interposes an observation which is material to the case, such observation should be taken down in the depositions; and if it be not, the judge at the trial will not allow evidence any of it to be given, Ibid. 5. It would be always desirable, when a person of weak intellect is examined before a magistrate in a case of felony, that the magistrate's clerk should take down in the depositions the questions put by the magistrate, and the answers given by the witness as to the witness's capacity to take an oath. Reg. v. Painter, 319

6. On a charge of felony, the wit

nesses who make the depositions on which the prisoner is committed should be examined in the prisoner's presence, and he should hear all the questions put and answered; and if the magistrates' clerk, before the arrival of the magistrates and of the prisoner, examine the witnesses and take down what they state, and when the magistrates and prisoner arrive the depositions so taken are read over to the witnesses in the presence of the magistrates and the prisoner, and the latter be asked whether he has any question to put to any of them, this is wrong. Reg v. Johnson,

394

7. Where a prisoner, charged with felony, has witnesses in attendance at the time of the examination before the magistrate, Lord Denman, C. J., recommended that they should be then examined if the prisoner wishes it; and if their evidence is believed, and answers the charge, no further proceedings need be taken. But if these witnesses contradict those for the prosecution in material points, the case should be sent to a jury, and the depositions of the prisoner's witnesses should be taken and signed by them, and transmitted to the judge, together with the depositions in support of the charge. Examination of Prisoner's Witnesses before Magistrates,

EXPENSES.

See ASSAULT, 6.

EXPOSURE (INDECENT). See INDECENT EXPOSURE.

FALSE ANSWER.

845

1. An indictment on the Municipal Corporation Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 34, for giving a false answer on voting for a town councillor, is bad, if it do not allege that the defendant "wilfully" gave the false answer. Charging that he gave the answer

1058 FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

"falsely and fraudulently," is not sufficient. Reg. v. Bent, 179

2. A count in an indictment, which charges that the defendant, at an election of a town councillor, falsely, fraudulently, deceitfully, and in fraud of the provisions of the stat. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, did personate J. H., whose name was on the burgess-roll, and gave a vote in the name of J. H. at such election, is bad, because it charges no offence either against the common law or against the stat. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76.

3. Form of indictment,

Ibid. Ibid.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT. 1. In an action for false imprisonment, the defendant pleaded that his goods had been stolen, and having cause to suspect the plaintiff of the felony, he gave her into custody, the plea stating several grounds of suspicion. The plaintiff called a policeman to prove that the defendant directed him to take the plaintiff into custody; and in his cross-examination the policeman said, that, at the same time, and in the presence of the plaintiff, the defendant stated that the goods had been stolen, and also stated some of the grounds of suspicion mentioned in the plea:-Held, that this was evidence for the jury to consider, and from which they might find, that the felony had been committed; and that the defendant had good cause to suspect the plaintiff, if this evidence satisfied them that the facts really were

FALSE PRETENCE,

FALSE OATH.

See FALSE ANSWER.

1. The wilful taking of a false oath before a surrogate, to obtain a marriage license, is a misdemeanor; and it is not essential to this offence that any marriage should have taken place, or that the defendant ever intended to marry. Reg. v. Chapman, 846

2. Whether this offence amounts to perjury-quære? Ibid.

3. Whether, in an affidavit, the description of the deponent, at the commencement of it, is a part of what he swears-quære? But if, in a count of an indictment for swearing falsely before a surrogate to obtain a marriage license, this and other things material are alleged to be falsely sworn (but not alleging the false swearing to be in an affidavit), proof of the false swearing as to any one of the other things will sustain the count.

4. Form of indictment.

FALSE PRETENCE.

Ibid. Ibid.

1. A., the servant of B., rendered an account to B. of 147. 18. 2d. as due from A. to his workmen, and B. gave A. a cheque for the amount. All that sum was so due except 78., which A. kept when he got the cheque cashed, and paid the workmen the residue. In one count of an indictment for false pretences, it was charged that, by this false pretence, A. obtained the cheque from B., with intent to defraud him of the same. It was objected that the intent was only to defraud B. of a part of the proceeds of the cheque. A. was convicted, and the fifteen judges held the conviction right, and that the evidence supported the count. Reg. v. Leonard, 514

2. A. bought cheese of B. at a fair, and paid for it. Before he bought it, B., who was offering cheese for sale there, bored two of the cheeses with an iron scoop, and produced a piece of cheese, called a taster, at the end of

FALSE REPRESENTATION.

1. Where the plaintiff made a purchase under the influence of the misrepresentations of the defendant, although a considerable time had elapsed between the misrepresentations and the sale:-Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover from the defendant, and that it made no difference that the sale was made by auction. Bardell v. Spinks,

646

2. Where the declaration alleged that the defendant had falsely represented himself as an agent of the master of a vessel, and so entered into a charter-party with the plaintiffs: Held, that, under the plea "Not guilty," the contract must be proved by the plaintiffs, and not the misrepresentation only; and, secondly, that the charter-party, being unstamped, could not be read in evidence; though the defendant was not an agent of any "master, or captain, or owner" of a vessel. Brink v Winguard, 656

FALSE STATEMENT TO A REGISTRAR.

See REGISTRAR.

FILIATION (ORDER OF). 1059

FEIGNED ISSUE.

1. Under a feigned issue, brought to try the right of property in certain goods which had been seized under an execution against A.:-Held, that the question for the jury was, not whether the goods were the property of the plaintiff in the feigned issue, or of A., but merely whether they were or were not the property of the former. Green 148 v. Rogers,

2. Where goods have been taken under a fi. fa., and an issue is directed to try whether the goods were those of a third person, and on that issue the jury at the assizes find for such person, who is plaintiff in the issue, the practice is for the associate to keep the Nisi Prius record bill after the fourth day of the next term, unless the judge orders it to be immediately delivered up to the plaintiff's attorney upon an application for speedy execution. Abbott v. Clarke,

FENCES.

209