destructive thing, must have averred that the thing administered was poisonous or destructive. (j) An indictment under the 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 2, charged that the prisoner feloniously did assault C. H., and that he did cause unto the said C. H. a certain bodily injury dangerous to life, by striking and beating her with his hands and fists on her head and back, by kicking her on the back, by seizing and lifting her, and striking her head against a wooden beam of a ceiling, by casting, throwing and flinging her against a brick floor, with intent to murder her. It was proposed to demur to this indictment, on the ground that the nature of the bodily injury dangerous to life should have been stated with certainty. Patteson, J., thought the point well deserving of consideration, but suggested that the prisoner should plead, he reserving to him the same benefit as if he had demurred: which was done, and after argument upon a case reserved, the judges held the indictment sufficient. (k)` Where an indictment on the 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 2, alleged that the prisoner discharged a gun loaded with gunpowder and ball at S. D., and with the ball so shot forth feloniously did strike, penetrate, and wound' the said S. D. upon the thigh, with intent to murder him; it was objected that the indictment was bad, because it did not allege that the wound was dangerous to life; but it was held that this averment was not necessary, and that it was as obvious, from the plain intent as from the grammatical construction of the section, that to stab, cut, or wound with intent to murder, though the stabbing, cutting, or wounding were not dangerous to life, was an offence under that section. (1) Upon an indictment under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 12, for wounding with a stick and with the feet, it appeared that one of the prisoners struck the prosecutor with a hedge-stake, or half-rail, on the head, and knocked him off his horse, and two other persons struck him with their fists, and kicked him over the head and body, so that he became senseless. He received a cut on the mouth, and a severe contused wound on the crown of the head. The medical witnesses were of opinion that the wound, from its position, could not have been caused by a fall from horseback, and that it was occasioned either by a blow from a stick, or a kick of a heavy shoe, when the prosecutor was on the ground. The jury found the prisoners guilty, but said they could not tell whether the wound was caused by a blow of the stick, or a kick with the shoe. It was objected that a wound given by the foot, with a shoe on it, was not within the Act; and, if it was, the mode of wounding was not properly described in the indictment, which stated it to have been done with the feet only. But upon a case reserved, the judges unanimously held that the means by which the wound was inflicted need (j) R. v. Powles, 4 C. & P. 571. The case was decided on the 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, the words any poison or other destructive thing,' in that Act are also in the 24 & 25 Viet. c. 100, ss. 11, 14. (k) R. v. Cruse, 2 Moo. C. C. R. 53. S. C. 8 C. & P. 541. It was necessary to take the objection by demurrer, or to get the point reserved as if it had been taken on demurrer, for after verdict the objection would not have availed, as the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 21, makes an indictment good after verdict, if it describe the offence in the words of the statute.' See as to this, R. v. Martin, 8 A. & E. 481. 3 N. & P. 472. The means of inflicting the injury are stated in this indictment, but it should seem that it was not necessary to state them. See R. v. Briggs, infra, note (m). C. S. G. (1) Shea v. R., 3 Cox, C. C. 141. The Court said that the same point had been held in Fogarty v. R., 2 Cox, C. C. 105; but the report does not mention any such point. There a count stated that the prisoner wilfully, maliciously, unlawfully, and feloniously, by certain means therein set out, caused to M. D. a certain bodily injury, dangerous to life, 'to wit, by then and there shooting, &c. [setting out the means] at the person of the said M. D.,' and it was objected that the acts alleged as the means whereby the wound was inflicted were not averred to have been done feloniously; but the Court overruled the objection. : not have been stated; that it was mere surplusage to state them and that the statement did not confine the Crown to the means stated, but might be rejected as surplusage, and that whether the wound was from a blow with a stick, or a kick from a shoe, the indictment was equally supported. (m) Where an indictment simply alleged that the prisoner attempted to discharge a loaded gun, and it was objected that it was bad for not describing the materials with which it was loaded; Platt, B., held that it was sufficient. (n) And where an indictment alleged that the prisoner by feloniously drawing the trigger of a certain pistol loaded with gunpowder and a leaden bullet, then and there feloniously did attempt to discharge the said pistol' at J. H., with intent to murder him; it was objected that the words, 'the said pistol' did not incorporate the previous description: Rolfe, B., The indictment is sufficient. It avers that the prisoner, by pulling the trigger of the pistol, attempted to discharge the said pistol, and surely that must mean that he attempted to discharge its contents.' (9) An indictment for maliciously shooting might, in one set of counts, lay the shooting at one person, with intent to murder that person, and in another set of counts, the shooting at another person, with intent to murder such other person. (p) And where such counts were so joined, the prosecutor would not be compelled to elect on which he would proceed. (2) An indictment under the 1 Vict. c. 85, for maliciously cutting and wounding, might contain counts framed on sec. 2, with intent to murder, and also counts framed on sec. 4, with intent to maim, disable, and do grievous bodily harm. () Where some counts charged the defendant with an assault on S. G., and with having thereby unlawfully and maliciously inflicted grievous. bodily harm upon him, and another count was for a common assault, it appeared that the defendant handed the prosecutor a letter, and asked him to read it, which he declined to do; the defendant then struck the prosecutor with his fists two violent blows on the mouth, another on the temple, and a fourth on the back of the ear; three of his front teeth, and other teeth farther up were loosened; his gums were lacerated, and the mouth was swollen. The pain which was suffered immediately afterwards was insufferable; one of the front teeth and the back teeth had since partially fastened, but the two front teeth had not, and the prosecutor must lose them. The prosecutor had suffered much otherwise for a long time. The jury were told that the injuries inflicted fell within the definition of 'grievous bodily harm,' and that if they believed the witnesses, there was evidence to support the first counts; and that the question of whether the defendant intended to inflict grievous bodily harm did not arise, but that the simple point for their consideration was, 'did the defendant unlawfully assault the prosecutor, and thereby inflict upon him grievous bodily harm?' The verdict was, 'We find the defendant guilty of an aggravated assault, but without premeditation; it was done under the influence of passion.' It was then contended that this was a verdict of guilty upon the count for the common assault only; but a verdict of guilty was directed to be entered on the other counts, and, upon a case reserved, it was urged that the jury might (m) R. v. Briggs, R. & M. C. C. R. 318. In Erle's case, 2 Lew. 133, Coleridge, J., also decided that an indictment upon the 1 Vict. c. 85, need not state the instrument used, and see Holloway v. R., 17 Q. B. 317. (n) R. v. Cox, 3 Cox, C. C. 58. (0) R. v. Baker, 1 C. & K. 255. (p) R. v. Holt, 7 C. & P. 518. (q) Butter's case, 1 Lew. 86, Parke, J. (r) R. v. Strange, 8 C. & P. 172. Lord Denman, C. J., and J. A. Park, J. See R. v. Murphy, 1 Cox, C. C. 108. have intended not to find the prisoner guilty of intending bodily harm, and that intention was a necessary ingredient in the offence, and the word maliciously' meant something more than 'intentionally;' but it was held that the direction was correct. The language used by the jury must be construed by looking at the subject-matter of the charge, and what was left to the jury; and this assault was intentional in the eye of the law, though committed without premeditation and under the influence of passion. (s) Upon an indictment against three for maliciously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, the jury may convict two of the felony charged, and the third (under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 19, s. 5), of unlawfully wounding. (†) Where one count charged the defendant with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm; and another with assaulting, beating, wounding, and ill-treating, and thereby occasioning actual bodily harm; and the jury found the defendant guilty of a common assault; it was held that this conviction was good upon the second count. (u) And so where one count was for inflicting grievous bodily harm, another for unlawfully wounding, and the third for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of a common assault, it was held that the verdict was perfectly legal, and that the Court was bound to receive it. (v) An indictment contained a count for unlawfully wounding, and another count for unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of an assault: - Held, a lawful verdict which the judge was bound to receive, and a conviction upon the above indictment was affirmed, although the word 'assault' was not contained in the indictment. (w) (s) R. v. Sparrow, Bell C. C. 298. (v) R. v. Yeadon, 1 L. & C. 81. And see R. v. Guthrie, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 241. (w) R. v. Taylor, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 194; 38 L. J. M. C. 106. APPENDIX B. Decisions on Repealed Statutes relating to Threats and Threatening Letters. What amounts to a threat.- -The construction of the 9 Geo. 1, c. 22, was much considered, in a case where the prisoner, Michael Robinson, was indicted for sending the following letter, dated, &c., without any name subscribed thereto, to one J. O. Oldham, demanding of him a certain valuable thing, namely, a bank note, against the form of the statute: 'SIR, 'I am well pleased to find that I am not likely to be mistaken in the idea I have entertained of you amongst men of a proper and liberal way of thinking: an understanding on such a matter as this is the easiest thing imaginable, and in repeating that you will find me a gentleman, I wish you to be satisfied that I am as incapable of taking any unmanly advantage as of wantonly sporting with the feelings of any one; I have ever despised and execrated the cowardly assassin, who, skulking in obscurity, sends forth his malignant shafts to wound the peace and the character of individuals; and I have, therefore, uniformly resisted every overture that has been made me for such a purpose. My situation as a literary character has teemed with temptations, but a sacred principle of honour has superseded them all. The subject on which I have addressed you has long lain dormant, and it was because I thought the attack of a most serious complexion that I hesitated for such a length of time in giving any countenance to it; not that I ever sought for any circumstance to influence my judgment or qualify my opinion, and, for all that has ever come to my knowledge, it may be all the moonshine of the moment: I am, therefore, so far candid, and I trust, not indelicate; and it will at least be a satisfaction to you to be told, with a solemnity becoming the character I have professed myself, that not a soul but myself is in possession of a line of the MS., nor has it ever been out of my hands, or perused or heard by any person living since first I had it; so that when it is committed to the flames all will necessarily die with it. Of this you shall have a testimony so clear and unequivocal that it will not be possible for you afterwards to doubt. Thus much I have suggested for your satisfaction; you will now give me leave to say something on behalf of the cause I have engaged in. I have not the least objection to an interview, and I readily close with your proposition; but there are a few preliminaries which I must first beg leave to adjust. Perhaps I may be more anxious to urge them, in order to have some proof of your sincerity, after which I am at your service. In order to relieve a destitute and unhappy family, struggling with sickness and sorrow, you will permit me to be your almoner. Will you enable me to dispose of a little of your money, as I shall see occasion? It is a duty I owe to the cause of humanity to urge it. Remember, sir, I am now only making my appeal to your benevolence. I am holding out no delusions to exact the involuntary tribute. I am asking you as a gentleman, as a man, to give me some earnest of your intention to prove what I am so strongly inclined to give you credit for. Enclose a bank note in a letter addressed to R. R., and let it be left at the Cambridge coffeehouse, the top of Newman-street, in Goodge-street, on the side of the bar. At the entrance of the coffee-room is a bracket for letters; let it be placed there between the hours of eleven and one on Thursday next'; and at five o'clock on the same day a line shall be sent by a porter to your house to acknowledge the receipt; after which, if you will name any day (Friday excepted) in the following week on which it will suit you, in the evening, to take a bottle of wine at the King's-head tavern, in Middle-row, Holborn, or elsewhere, I will with pleasure attend you. Our meeting, however, is to be private and tête-à-tête. Thus, possibly, over the ashes of the MS. a phoenix may arise that may prove the forerunner to friendship. I shall send to the coffee-house between the hours of one and four, and I will venture to say that you will have no reason to be dissatisfied with the event of this correspondence. To obtain confidence it is necessary, or at least reasonable, to expect that one should be reposed. I have the honour to remain, Sir, 'Your obedient humble servant, The prosecutor had served an apprenticeship with a person named Dolly, by whom he was afterwards taken into partnership; upon Dolly's death a report was spread that the prosecutor had been the author of his death, upon which he brought an action against two persons, and had judgment against them. Before the letter in question was sent, several other letters had been written by the prisoner to the prosecutor, to which he returned answers, for the purpose of obtaining information of the prisoner's place of abode, in order to bring him to justice. And all these letters were read in evidence, as serving to explain the letter upon which the prisoner was indicted. It was intimated in them that another person, who was a friend of the prisoner's, and who was in distress, had put certain MSS. into his hands, containing a charge of the prosecutor having murdered his former master, Dolly, and afterwards married the widow, his accomplice; but that the prisoner was unwilling to publish the MSS. containing so serious a charge without giving a previous intimation to the prosecutor, and hearing what he had to propose upon the subject. A subsequent correspondence between the prosecutor and the prisoner was also given in evidence; in the course of which the prisoner communicated a few pages of the supposed MSS. in verse, from which the charge alluded to was to be plainly inferred. Upon this evidence the learned judge before whom the prisoner was tried left the case to the jury to say whether the prisoner sent the letter above set forth, and whether it contained a threat to publish a libel on the prosecutor, imputing to him the death of Dolly, unless he would send the prisoner a bank note; and in case they were of that opinion they were directed to find the prisoner guilty. The jury found him guilty, and also found specially that the prisoner sent the letter in the indictment, and that it contained a threat to publish a libel, imputing to the prosecutor the murder of his master, in order to extort money from him. Several objections were taken to this conviction, and amongst others it was objected |