REG. V. GARDNER. 1862. Larceny- The jury found "That the prisoner took the cheque from Thomas Boucher in the hopes of getting the reward; and, if that is larceny, we find him guilty." Thereupon the Judge directed a verdict of Guilty to be entered, and reserved for the opinion of this Court whether upon the above finding the prisoner was properly convicted. November 15.-Best (with him Besley) for the prisoner argued that the finding of the jury disproved the felonious intent. In Reg. v. York (3 Cox Crim. Cas. 181) a similar finding of the jury was held to amount to "Not Guilty." (He was then stopped.) Kemp for the prosecution.-The defendant read the cheque, and knew the owner. In this respect the case differs from Reg v. Christopher (8 Cox Crim. Cas. 91; 28 L. J. 35, M. C.), and resembles Reg. v. Moore (8 Cox Crim. Cas. 416; 30 L. J. 77, M. C.). As against all the world but the true owner, the boy, Boucher, was the owner, and the prisoner took the cheque from him against his will, and may be convicted on the second count. POLLOCK, C. B.-That is the case of Armory v. Delamirie (Str. 505), where a boy was held entitled to sue his master for a jewel which he had found and his master had taken from him. It was not supposed that the master was guilty of felony. There the jewel was not ear-marked, but every one who can read can tell to whom a cheque belongs. Properly speaking a cheque is not a chattel, and is not the subject of larceny. We must take it that the cheque was stamped, and being stamped it was not a piece of paper-it was a cheque. Cur. adv. vult. November 22.-POLLOCK, C. B.-In this case the prisoner was convicted of stealing a cheque. He took the cheque away from a boy who found it, and did not immediately give information to the owner, but withheld it in the expectation of getting a reward. The taking of the cheque from the finder was not a felonious taking, and the merely withholding it in the expectation of a reward was not a larceny. The rest of the Court concurring, Conviction quashed. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL. November 22nd and 29th, 1862. (Before POLLOCK, C.B., WIGHTMAN and WILLIAMS, JJ., CHANNELL, B., and MELLOR, J.) REG. v. BARRETT. (a) Brothel-Keeping-Evidence-Landlord-Weekly tenants. The owner of a house proved to be a common bawdy-house, let it out to weekly tenants, but did not appear to have got any additional rent by reason of the purposes to which the house was applied. He was frequently remonstrated with as to the manner in which the house was conducted, and called upon to abate the nuisance, and was told that unless he did so, an indictment would be preferred against him. He, however, took no steps and allowed matters to go on as before. Held, that he was not guilty of keeping a common bawdy-house or of being an accessory thereto. THE HE following case was reserved at the Middlesex Sessions. Thomas Barrett was tried before me at the Middlesex Sessions, in November, 1862, upon an indictment which in the first and second counts charged him and two other persons with keeping a common bawdy-house and disorderly house in the parish of St. George-in-the-East, and in two other counts he was charged alone with keeping another common bawdy-house and disorderly house in the same parish. The houses in question were proved to be common bawdyhouses, and robberies had been frequently committed in them by prostitutes and other idle and disorderly persons who frequented them by day and night. The evidence against the other defendants, who were included in the indictment was conclusive, and no question arises as respects. them. The evidence against Thomas Barrett, in addition to the proof as to the nature of the houses, was, that he, Thomas Barrett, was the owner of both houses, which he let to weekly tenants, and that he had been repeatedly remonstrated with as to the manner in which the houses were conducted, and called upon to interfere so as to abate the nuisance. (a) Reported by JOHN THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. REG. v. BARRETT. 1862. Brothel Evidence of keeping. Of these warnings he took no notice, and some months before the prosecution was instituted he was served with a written notice, to the effect that the police and inhabitants complained of the vicious and disorderly conduct of his tenants, and that unless he took steps for removing them, and for the discontinuance of the unlawful practices, which for a long time had been carried on, and still were carried on, in his said houses, an indictment would be preferred against him and all other parties concerned in the unlawful practices complained of, and that in that case the notice then served would be given in evidence against him. The defendant, Thomas Barrett, took no steps with the view of complying, but continued to go to the houses and receive the rent from the occupiers every week until the present prosecution was commenced. It was not proved that the defendant obtained any additional rent by reason of the nature of the occupation. The prisoner's counsel contended that there was no evidence for the jury to consider, but, as I stated that I should take their opinion upon the facts, he addressed the jury. I told the jury that if they were satisfied that the defendant well knew the purposes for which the houses were occupied, and having the power of removing the tenants by a week's notice, had continuously permitted them to remain, and to conduct them as common bawdy-houses, notwithstanding the warnings and notices given him, that they should find him guilty. The jury found the defendant Guilty; and I have to request the judgment of this Honourable Court whether the conviction can in point of law be sustained. The defendant has been admitted to bail until the decision of this Honourable Court is pronounced. November 19, 1862. WM. H. BODKIN, Assistant Judge of the November 22.-Ribton for the prisoner Barrett.-The conviction cannot be sustained. The prisoner was in no sense the keeper of a common bawdy-house. He was merely the landlord, and received the rent, and although he could have prevented the house being used for the purpose it was used, but did not, that is not sufficient to support a conviction of him under this indictment. The case of Rich v. Basterfield (4 C. B. 783), is in point, the marginal note of which is: "Although the owner of property may, as occupier, be responsible for injuries arising from acts done upon that property by persons who are there by his permission, though not strictly his agents or servants, such liability attaches only upon parties in actual possession. Where, therefore, an action was brought against A., the owner of premises, for a nuisance arising from smoke issuing out of a chimney to the prejudice of the plaintiff, in his occupation of an adjoining messuage, on the ground that A., having erected the chimney and let the premises with the chimney so erected, had impliedly authorized the lighting of a fire therein. REG. v. BARRETT. Held, that the action would not lie; held, also, that inasmuch as the premises were in the occupation of B., a tenant at the time the fires were lighted, A. was entitled to a verdict on the plea of not possessed,' the allegation as to possession having reference to the time when the nuisance complained of was committed, and not to the time at which the chimney was erected." In that case, as in Evidence of the present, the tenancy was a weekly one. Rex v. Pedley (1 A. & E. 822), was reviewed in that case. Poland for the prosecution. The conviction was right. No doubt, if the rooms had been let upon lease, and after the possession was in the tenants they had been converted to this immoral purpose, the landlord would not have been responsible. But this is an indictment at common law, alleging that the landlord and tenants jointly kept a common bawdy-house; and the prisoner Barrett is in the position of an accessory before the fact. Without the aid of the statute 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, the prisoner is indictable at common law if he is a party to the committing of the nuisance. In Rich v. Basterfield the nuisance arose from burning coke, and the landlord was no party to that. In Pierson's case (2 Ld. Raym. 1197), it was held that a lodger who keeps only a single room for the use of bawdy is indictable for keeping a bawdyhouse. Cur, adv. vult. November 29.-POLLOCK, C. B.-We are of opinion that the conviction cannot be sustained, the defendant not really being the keeper of a common bawdy-house in point of law. He was simply the owner of the house, letting it to another person who used it for an immoral purpose. The defendant had nothing to do with that, and did not participate in the profits of so using it. He had nothing to do with the immoral part of the transaction, except in knowing the way in which the house was used. My brother Williams very shortly expressed the view we take, when he said that all that the defendant did was not to give the tenants notice to quit. To construe that to be an offence would be going beyond what the Act intended. Conviction quashed. 1862. Brothel keeping. VOL. IX. COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. January 12, 1863. (Before COCKBURN, C.J., WIGHTMAN, CROMPTON, and MELLOR, JJ.) REG. v. PEARCE. (a) County Court-Perjury-Assignment of, on evidence on judgmentsummons—Marriage after judgment. A feme sole obtained a judgment in the G. County Court, and then married S. She afterwards took out a judgment-summons in her name when sole, in L. County Court, without having made her husband a party to the judgment. At the heariny of the summons the judge of the L. Court amended the summons by striking out the name of the plaintiff, and substituting S. and wife. After the alteration the defendant was sworn and examined, and committed perjury. He was then indicted and found guilty of perjury : Held, that the amendment was without jurisdiction, and that there being no cause in the altered name, the conviction could not be supported. NDICTMENT for perjury: IND The jurors of our Lady the Queen upon their oath present that heretofore, to wit, on a certain day before the 9th day of March, 1855, one Henrietta Grundy brought an action by causing to be issued a certain plaint in the County Court of Kent, holden at Gravesend, against one Benjamin Workman Pearce, and afterwards, to wit, on the 9th day of March, 1855, recovered judg ment against the said B. W. Pearce; the said County Court of Kent, holden at Gravesend, being then a County Court established under and by virtue of a certain Act made and passed in a session of Parliament holden in the ninth and tenth years of the reign of her present Majesty, intituled "An Act for the more easy recovery of small debts and demands in England." And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that afterwards, to wit, on the 24th day of January, 1861, and after the said H. Grundy had been married to one Walter Smith, and while the said B. W. Pearce was dwelling and carrying on business in the city of London, to wit, at the "Blue Pig," in St. Mary Axe, and while the judgment hereinbefore mentioned was still unsatisfied, the said H. Grundy, otherwise Smith, obtained a summons (a) Reported by JOHN THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. |