Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

ment could not be sustained. The case has been considered by the Judges of the present Court of Appeal, and we are of opinion that the objection cannot be sustained, and that the indictment is sufficient.

It is true that money does not fall within the legal technical definition of "goods and chattels." See Guy's case (a). But this indictment charges the prisoner with having stolen two shillings, the current silver coin of the realm, which is an accurate description of the property stolen. We think, that in reading the indictment the words " of the goods and chattels" ought to be rejected as surplusage: Morris's case (b); and that the charge in the indictment, as before stated, is, that the prisoner stole two pieces of current silver coin of the realm, of the value of two shillings, "of Samuel Fitch," which is a sufficient allegation that the coin stolen was the property of Samuel Fitch; and we think that it is immaterial that the current coin of the realm is afterwards inaccurately described as "goods and chattels:" and that the conviction, therefore, was proper.

1849.

REGINA

v.

RADLEY.

Conviction affirmed.

(a) 1 Leach C. C. 276, (Case 120).

(b) Id. 109, (Case 65).

FALSE

REGINA V. LANGBRIDGE.

pretence. The defendant was convicted at the general sessions of the peace for the county of Devon, on the 28th of February, 1849, for unlawfully obtaining, by means of false pretences, from Mary Rowe one promissory note for the payment of the sum of 50l. and interest, and of the value of 501., of the property of Charlotte Rowe, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Charlotte Rowe of the

A caption of a deposition,

which was read in evidence against a defend

ant in a case of stated that it was taken on a

false pretence,

charge of "obtaining money, and other valuable security for

money, from M. R., then and there being the money of W. S. R., and the said valuable security for money being then and there the property of C. R.:"-Held, to be no objection to its being received in evidence, that it did not state that the charge was, that the money was "unlawfully" obtained.

1849.

REGINA บ.

LANGBRIDGE.

same, subject to the opinion of the Judges upon a case which stated, that—

"Upon the trial of the prisoner, the deposition of Mary Rowe was put in by the counsel for the prosecution; proof was given that it was taken by the committing justice, in the presence of the prisoner, and that he had a full opportunity of cross-examining the said Mary Rowe, the witness; that it was signed by William Ponsford, clerk, the justice before whom the same purported to have been taken; and that the said Mary Rowe was at the time of the trial so ill as not to be able to travel.

"The charge preferred before the committing justice was, that the prisoner had obtained the promissory note, and other valuable securities, by means of false pretences, and of this charge the prisoner was informed by the committing justice.

"The caption of the deposition of the said Mary Rowe is as follows:

'Devon, to wit. The examination of Mary Rowe, the wife of William Squire Rowe, of Thornbury Farm, in the parish of Hittisleigh, in the county of Devon, taken on oath this 14th day of February, A. D. 1849, at Hittisleigh, in the county aforesaid, before the undersigned, William Ponsford, clerk, one of her Majesty's justices of the peace for the said county, in the presence and hearing of Harriet Langbridge, late of Moreton Hampstead, in the said county, wife of John Langbridge, of the same place, labourer, who is now charged before me this day for obtaining money, and other valuable security for money, from the said Mary Rowe, then and there being the money of the said William Scuire Rowe, and the said valuable security for money being then and there the property of one Charlotte Rowe.'

"It was objected, on behalf of the prisoner, that the charge thus set forth in the said caption is, obtaining mo

ney and valuable securities for money; but whether legally or illegally is not stated, and no offence is therefore shewn; and that the deposition of Mary Rowe was consequently not receivable in evidence. The Court, however, received it in evidence, subject to the question whether, under the circumstances, it ought to have been so received.

"The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to be transportod for seven years, but execution of the sentence was respited until the determination of the above question by the Judges. There was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, without the deposition of the said Mary Rowe."

1849.

REGINA

บ.

LANGBRIDGE.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

BEFORE WILDE, C. J., ROLFE, B., CRESSWELL, J., PLATT, B., AND
VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, J.

This case was not argued by counsel.

WILDE, C. J., delivered judgment. In this case the Judges are unanimously of opinion that the objection is not valid, and that the deposition was properly received in evidence. The objection is, not that the evidence, as set forth in the examination, did not sufficiently appear to relate to the charge upon which the prisoner was being tried, so as to warn and apprise her of the matter to which her crossexamination should be directed, but only that the title of the examination did not with sufficient distinctness state the charge against her. The title of the deposition states the occasion of its being taken, and the matter to which it refers, and there is no authority requiring any title, or, as it is called, caption, to the examination; and it is sufficient if it be described as the examination of the witness, and that the evidence referred to the charge upon which the prisoner may be upon his trial; and, as no objection was raised that the deposition was defective in that respect,

June 23rd.

1849.

REGINA

v.

LANGBRIDGE.

we think the deposition was properly read in evidence. It may, however, not be improper to observe, that the case states that the charge preferred against the prisoner was that of obtaining the promissory note and securities by means of false pretences, and that the prisoner was informed of this charge by the committing justice, and that she had full opportunity of cross-examining the witness.

Conviction right.

A. stole fowls, and sent them

by coach to Birmingham, in a box, not ad

dressed to any one; but A. made a verbal

REGINA V. CATHERINE HILL, indicted and tried with WIL-
LIAM HILL and JAMES HILL.

RECEIVING stolen goods. The prisoners were convicted at the Warwickshire Quarter Sessions, on the 12th of March, 1849, subject to the opinion of the Judges upon a case which stated that "William Hill and James Hill were indicted for stealing twenty fowls, the property of John Smith, and Catherine Hill for receiving ten fowls so stolen &c., knowing &c. All the three prisoners were found guilty. It was proved that the prosecutor was a farmer residing at Marton in the county of Warwick, and possessor, at the time of the robbery, of a quantity of fowls, princiand she claimed pally of the Dorking breed, white, with five toes on either it, but it was

statement when he sent them, that a person would call for them at Birmingham. B. inquired for the

box; it was

shewn to her,

not delivered to claw. The fowls, to the number of twenty, were stolen her:-Held,

that B. could

convicted as a receiver.

from the prosecutor's premises between the evening of the not be properly 26th and the morning of the 27th of February. On the 28th of February, between seven and eight o'clock in the morning, the prisoner James Hill, accompanied by the other prisoner William Hill, brought in a wheelbarrow to an inn at Redditch, a box and a hamper, and delivered them, to go by the coach to Birmingham. There was no direction affixed to either of them, but the prisoner James Hill, on delivering them, said, 'a person would call for them at Birmingham.' The box and hamper were taken to Birmingham the following day, 1st of March, and, shortly

after the arrival of the coach in Birmingham, the prisoner Catherine Hill came to the coach-office and inquired after the box. The box was shewn to her by the coachman, and she claimed it as the box which she was come for. Upon this, she was taken into custody; and the box, being opened in her presence, was found to contain ten fowls. The fowls were plucked of their feathers, and from the claws of eight of them a fifth toe had been cut away, which was remaining upon the other two fowls.

[ocr errors]

"The prisoner Catherine Hill, in answer to the observation of the police constable, that these fowls were believed to be the property of the prosecutor, Mr. Smith of Marton, said, they had been sent to her from Stourbridge.' The same day, the house of the prisoner William Hill, which is near to Redditch, ten or twelve miles from Birmingham, was searched by two police constables, who found a large quantity of feathers, chiefly white, which appeared to have been recently plucked, and also the entrails of fowls concealed about the house and premises; and the two male prisoners, who were at home in the house, were apprehended. The prisoner William Hill, upon being told by the constables, on their first arrival, that they were come about Mr. Smith's fowls, said, he had not had a fowl on his premises for a fortnight.'

[ocr errors]

"The prisoner William Hill is the husband of the prisoner Catherine Hill, and father of the prisoner James Hill.

"The prisoners were not defended by counsel. The jury found a verdict of guilty against all the prisoners, but the Chairman, William Dickens, Esq., entertaining some doubt whether this indictment could be sustained against the female prisoner, as a receiver of goods stolen by her husband, respited the sentence upon her, until the next Midsummer Quarter Sessions, in order that, in the meantime, the opinion of the Court above might be obtained as to the propriety of the conviction of Catherine Hill."

1849.

REGINA

v.

HILL.

« AnteriorContinuar »