shall be lawful for the jury to acquit of the felony, and to find a verdict of guilty of assault against the person indicted, if the evidence shall warrant such finding; and when such verdict shall be found, the Court shall have power to imprison the person so found guilty of an assault for any term not exceeding three years.

On an indictment for a rape in the common form, the prisoner was found guilty of the assault. This being an offence at common law, and not punishable under the act of 1 Vict. c. 85, the learned Judges thought they had no power to sentence to hard labor, and the sentence was accordingly to imprisonment only for three years; but it appearing that other Judges had acted differently, the opinion of the Judges was requested upon this question.

[*42]

*And also, whether it would not be advisable for the future to direct that indictments for felonies, including assaults, should state the assault to have been with intent to commit the felony, in which case the prisoner may be sentenced to hard labor.

At a meeting of the Judges in Easter term, 1838, they all thought it to be now no defence to such an indictment, that if death had ensued the offence would not have been murder but manslaughter, except LORD DENMAN, C. J., and LITTLEDALE, J., who doubted. Upon the second point they were unanimously of opinion that hard labor might be added.

REGINA v. ALEXANDER TURNER.

An indictment under 2 W. 4, c. 34, s. 15, charging the gilding sixpences with materials capable of producing the color of gold, is good, and supported by proof of coloring sixpences with gold.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON BOLLAND, present Mr. BARON PARKE, on the following indictment, at the Old Bailey in April 1838.

The jurors of our lady the Queen upon their oath present, that Alexander Turner, late of the parish of St. Mary Matfelow, otherwise Whitechapel, in the county of Middlesex, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, laborer, on the 27th day of January, in the 1st year of the reign of our sovereign Lady Victoria, by the grace of God, of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, three pieces of the Queen's current silver coin called sixpences, then and there feloniously did gild with materials capable of producing the color of gold, with intent to make the same resemble and pass for the Queen's current gold coin called half-sovereigns, against the form, &c., and against the peace of our said lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

[*43]

The statute on which the indictment is founded is

the 2 W. 4, c. 34, the fourteenth section of which is as follows:

"And be it enacted, that if any person shall gild or silver, or shall with any wash or materials capable of producing the color of gold or silver, wash, color, or case over any coin whatsoever, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the King's current gold or silver coin; or if any person shall gild or silver, or shall with any wash or materials not capable of producing the color of gold or of silver, wash, color, or case over any piece of silver or copper, or of coarse gold or coarse silver, or of any metal or mixture of metals respectively, being of a fit size and figure to be coined, and with intent that the same shall be coined into false and counterfeit coin, resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the King's current gold or silver coin; or if any person shall gild, or shall with any wash or materials capable of producing the color of gold, wash, color, or case over any of the King's current silver coin; or file, or in any manner alter such coin with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any of the King's current gold coin or if any person shall gild or silver, or shall with any wash or materials capable of producing the color of gold or of silver, wash, color, or case over any of the King's current copper coin; or file, or in any manner alter such coin, with intent to make the same resemble or pass for any of the King's current gold or silver coin, every such offender shall in England and

[*44]

Ireland be guilty *of felony, and in Scotland of a high criminal offence, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be transported beyond the seas for life, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years."

It was proved that the prisoner was apprehended in the act of gilding sixpences with gold, three of which so gilt were found in the room where he was taken, on which an objection was made that the indictment was not proved, as the prisoner had used gold and not materials capable of producing the color of gold. It was answered by the counsel for the Crown, that the latter words might be altogether rejected. The counsel for the prisoner contended that they could not, as they qualified the word gold, and showed it was not used in the strict sense of the word. The learned Judge, with the concurrence of Mr. BARON PARKE, directed a verdict for the Crown. The counsel for the prisoner then moved in arrest of judgment, in case the objection should be one on the record.

This case was considered by all the Judges except VAUGHAN, J., GURNEY, B., and WILLIAMS, J., in Easter term, 1838, and the Judges present were unanimous that the indictment was proved. LITTLEDALE, J., and PARKE, B., thought the indictment bad, but the other Judges considered it good, and the conviction was affirmed.

[*45]

*REGINA v. WHEATER.

The examination of a person taken on oath as a witness before Commissioners of Bankruptcy, is admissible against him on a charge of forgery, he having been cautioned and allowed to elect what questions he would

answer.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, at the Spring assizes for the county of York, 1838, on an indictment charging him in various counts with having forged, uttered, and disposed of the acceptance of a bill of exchange. The intent in each count was charged to have been to defraud Joshua Wheater.

The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and the learned Judge passed sentence of imprisonment on him, informing him, at the same time, that he had doubts as to the admissibility of some evidence which he had received, on which point the learned Judge requested the opinion of the Judges.

The prisoner had been agent in London for the sale of cloths to his father, Joshua Wheater, a cloth manufacturer near Leeds; Joshua became embarrassed, and ultimately a bankrupt.

The bill in question, which with other forged bills was found in the prisoner's possession, and had been paid after dishonor, had been remitted by him to his father, as alleged, by way of return for cloths. The prisoner had been examined by the commissioners