WELSBY for the prisoner. This indictment is bad. It ought to have alleged that Elizabeth Sandys died of the poison and of the sickness occasioned thereby. In 1 Starkie, Cr. Pl. 93, it is laid down that "It must be averred that the wound or bruise was mortal, and finally, the adequacy of the means to produce death must be further shown by a direct averment that the party died of the stroke or poisoning, and this cannot be supplied by any implication or *intendment whatsoever." And he quotes authorities in support of the position,-Lad's case, Leach, 112, 2 Hale, 186, 1 Haw. c. 23, s. 82, 83, Kel. 125.

[*232]

In Miss Blandy's case, 2 Starkie, 387, the allegation is that the deceased died of the poison and of the sickness, &c., and it is there said to be material.

PARKE, B. In Donollan's case (a), the indictment alleged the deceased died of the sickness occasioned by the poison.

LORD ABINGER. In an indictment for murder by a sword you must state the wound by the sword, and go on, of which wound he died, not of which sword.

In 1 East, P. C. 342, it is said:-"But in all cases the death by the means stated must be positively alleged, and cannot be taken by implication, and therefore when the means of death is alleged to be by any stroke, the indictment should proceed to aver that the prisoner thereby gave to the deceased a mortal wound or bruise whereof he died; or where by poison, after

(a) 2 Starkie, 393.

stating particularly the manner of the poison being administered, that the party died of the poison taken, and the sickness thereby occasioned."

LORD DENMAN, C. J. There is no authority referred to that supports that position. The indictment in Donollan's case appears to have been similar to the present. The authorities do not support the objection. Townsend was to have argued for the prosecution, but was not called on.

The Judges were unanimously of opinion that the indictment was good, and the other question was not gone into.

*REGINA v. DAVID HENRY GILCHRIST. [*233]

A post-office order for the payment of 51., in the ordinary form, is a warrant and order for the payment of money, and may be so described in an indictment for larceny. The practice of transmitting and paying such orders being sanctioned and legalized by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 96, the same need not be stamped, on trial for larceny.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON GURNEY, at the October sessions, at the Central Criminal Court, in the year 1841, on an indictment which charged in the first count, that on the 20th of September the prisoner stole four warrants and orders for payment of money (to wit), for the payment of 51., each, and of the value of 57., each, the goods, chattels, and property

of Edward Williams, the same several sums secured, &c., being due and unsatisfied to him, against the statute, &c.

Second count, stealing four warrants and orders for payment of money (to wit), for payment of the sum of 57., each, and of the value of 57., each, commonly called "post-office money-orders," the goods, chattels, and property of Joseph Baker, the same several sums secured, &c., being due and unsatisfied to him, against the statute, &c.

Third count, stealing four valuable securities, that is to say, four warrants and orders for payment, of the sum of 57., each, commonly called post-office moneyorders, then and there sent by the post, of the goods, chattels, and property of Her Majesty's postmastergeneral, against the statute, &c.

[*234]

It was proved, that a person of the name of Baker, who was a corporal in the 56th regiment of foot, being desirous of obtaining his discharge, and understanding that the sum of 207. would be accepted for that purpose, being unable to write, employed the *prisoner to write for him a letter to his father-inlaw, at Shrewsbury, requesting the remittance of that The prisoner had, on former occasions, written letters for Baker, and the answers had come, as directed, to his lodgings. The prisoner read the letter to Baker after he had written it, but did not read to him a postscript which he added, stating that he had

sum.

removed his residence, and desiring that the answer, with the remittance, should be directed to another place, which he described. The letter written by the prisoner was received at Shrewsbury by the post, and the wife of Baker, who was living there with her father, took 201. from him to the post-office at Shrewsbury, and received from the hands of the postmaster four papers (usually known), by the name of post-office money-orders, for 57., each, in the form annexed. (a) *Knowing that her husband could not write, she signed his name at the bottom of each order.

(a) (COPY.)

[*235]

In cases where personal attendance is inconvenient, if the receipt below is properly signed by the person to whom the order is made payable, and the party presenting the order for payment can afford full information as to the Christian name, surname, address, and occupation of the person who originally obtained the order, payment will be made to the party presenting the order; but unless these conditions are strictly complied with, it will be refused.

No. 1182. £5 0 0.

POST-OFFICE, Shrewsbury, Sept. 18, 1841.

Credit the person named in my letter of advice the sum of Five Pounds, and debit the same to this office.

[*236]

She *sealed them up in a letter to her husband,

and addressed them, as directed, by the postscript to the letter.

(COPY.)

Advice of Money-Order drawn by the Post-Office of Shrewsbury upon the PostOffice at London, on the 18th day of Sept. 1841.

This advice must be signed both by the postmaster who draws the order and by the postmaster upon whom it is drawn; and the latter must not fail, after having entered the particulars in his money-order book, to forward it by the very first post after its receipt to the chief money-order office of the kingdom in which is situated the town where such order was granted, viz., to London if the order is granted in England, to Dublin if granted in Ireland, and to Edinburgh if granted in Scotland, in obedience to the printed instructions on this subject. If any correspondence arises from neglect in forwarding this letter of advice according to these, the postmaster guilty of such omission will be charged with the postage; and in the event of further irregularity, he will be reported to the postmaster-general. A duplicate advice for each order must invariably be forwarded to the capital of the country on the post-town of which the order is issued.