[*385

*Mr. Justice J. PARKE. I think, upon the authority of that case, I cannot call upon the plaintiff to discharge either the proprietors or the coachman. The question will be hereafter open in arrest of judgment. Upon this, Storks, Serjt., for the plaintiff, consented to the acquittal of the coachman.

For the defence, the guard of the coach was called.

Storks, Serjt., objected to his being examined without a release, as he was so mixed up in the transaction, as to be probably liable.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE. You must release him.
Kelly, for the defendants.

a release.

We have not fourteen defendants here to execute

Mr. Justice J. PARKE. One will do.

The guard was not examined.

Storks, Serjt., and Gunning, for the plaintiff.

Kelly, for the defendants.

Verdict for the defendants.

[Attorneys-Pearse, and Leigh.]

dent caused by the driving of ungovernable horses in Lincoln's-inn-fields; the master was not present at the accident, but the plaintiff recovered against both.

*BEDFORD ASSIZES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.

[*386

REX v. BIRDSEYE.

July 24.

A prisoner was indicted for stealing three articles. It appeared, that, having taken the first article, he returned in about two minutes and took the second, and then returned in half an hour and took the third :-Held, that the last taking was a distinct felony, and could not be given in evidence with the other two. But, that the interval of time between the first and second takings was so short, that they must be considered as parts of the same transaction. INDICTMENT for stealing pickled pork, a bowl, some knives, and a loaf of

bread.

It appeared, that the prisoner entered the shop of the prosecutor, and ran away with the pork. In about two minutes he returned, replaced the pork in a bowl, which contained the knives, and took away the whole together, threatening destruction to any one who followed him. In about half an hour after, he came back to the prosecutor's shop, and took away the loaf.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE. This taking away the loaf cannot be given in evidence upon this indictment. I think that the prisoner's taking the pork, and returning in two minutes, and then running off with the bowl, must be taken to be one continuing transaction, but I think that half an hour is too long a period to admit of that construction. The taking of the loaf, therefore, is a distinct offence.

The prisoner was acquitted, the learned Judge telling the Jury, that the felonious intent was not sufficiently made out.

Smith, for the prosecution.

[Attorney-Eagles.]

*387]

*REX v. HANNAH KINGSTON. July 26.

A girl was charged with administering poison, with intent to murder. The surgeon said to her," you are under suspicion of this, and you had better tell all you know." After this she made a statement to the surgeon:-Held, that that statement was not admissible in evidence.

INDICTMENT for administering arsenic to Eliza Bates, with intent to murder her. It appeared, that the surgeon who was called in saw the prisoner, and said to her, you are under suspicion of this, and you had better tell all you know; and after this she made a statement to the surgeon.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE, having conferred with Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE, held, that evidence of this statement was inadmissible. Verdict-Not guilty.

Hunt, for the prosecution.

Storks, Serjt., for the prisoner.

See the cases referred to, Carr. Supp. 58; and the case of Rex v. Clewes, ante, p. 221.

CAMBRIDGE ASSIZES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE J. PARKE.

REX v. GEORGE BRIGHT. July 27.

A. went to a house at night, demanding to see the servant. He was told to depart, and would not. A constable was sent for, and A. went from the house to the garden. When the constable arrived, A. said, that if a light appeared at the windows he would break them; upon which the constable took him into custody :-Held, that the constable was not justified in so doing.

INDICTMENT for stabbing Thomas Sell, with intent to murder him. The indictment also contained a count, charging the intent to be, to resist the prisoner's lawful apprehension.

*388] *It appeared, that the prisoner, on the 2d of July, at about half-past ten o'clock at night, came to the house of a person named Hagger, and demanded to see the maid servant. Mrs. Hagger desired him to quit the house, which he refused to do, and the prosecutor, who was a constable, was sent for. Before the prosecutor came, the prisoner left the house, and went into the garden. In about twenty minutes the prosecutor came. The prisoner did nothing in his presence; but, upon the prisoner saying, "if a light appear at the windows, I will break every one of them," the prosecutor took him into custody; and the prosecutor and others then confined his hands with a cord; the prisoner borrowed a knife to cut the cord, and, in endeavouring to cut it, wounded the prosecutor.

Smith, for the prisoner, submitted, that the arresting the prisoner was illegal, as nothing had been done by him in breach of the peace in presence of the constable.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE. I think that the detention of the prisoner, by the prosecutor, was illegal. There was no breach of the peace when the prisoner was taken into custody. If death had ensued from the prisoner's resistance, it would not have been murder, but manslaughter. Something had certainly taken place previously to the arrival of the constable; but still, when he did arrive, he had no charge given him to take the prisoner. Verdict-Not guilty.

Hunt, for the prosecution.

Smith, for the prisoner.

[Attorney for the prosecution-Chevell.]

*NORWICH ASSIZES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.

[*389

WRIGHT v. WRIGHT.

August 4.

Where, on the trial of an issue out of the Court of Chancery, a person who is not a party on the record is, by order of that Court, " to be at liberty to attend the trial of such issue;" the counsel of such person has no right to address the Jury, or to call witnesses; but he may cross-examine the witnesses called by both parties, and suggest points of law.

ISSUE directed by the Court of Chancery to try the validity of a will. Under the order of the Court of Chancery, Henry Wright, one of the legatees, was “to be at liberty to attend the trial of such issue."

After Storks, Serjt., had addressed the Jury for the defendant, Prendergast, as the counsel of Henry Wright, claimed a right to address the Jury for his client.

Storks, Serjt., objected to this, and cited the case of Sir Gregory Page Turner, in which Firth, Serjt., held a brief "to attend," and in which Best, C. J., decided, that he had no right to address the Jury or call witnesses.

Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE having conferred with Mr. Justice J. Parke, decided, that Prendergast had no right to address the Jury, or to call witnesses; but that he might cross-examine the witnesses of both parties, and suggest points of law. Special verdict.

Andrews, and Austin, for the plaintiff.

Storks, Serjt., and Kelly, for the defendant.
Prendergast, for one of the legatees.

[Attorneys-Saunders & Comyn-Bridges-Ager & Bircham.]

*CROWN SIDE.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE J. PARKE.

[*390

REX v. SNOWLEY.

Embezzlement. A. was employed to lead a stallion, and he was to charge 30s. a mare, and not take less than 20s. He received a sum of 6s. for the covering of a mare which he did not account for :-Held, no embezzlement, as this sum was not received "by virtue of his employment."

EMBEZZLEMENT. It appeared, that the prisoner was hired by the prosecutor to lead a stallion round the country during the season, and he was to charge for each mare, 30s., and not to take less than 20s. He stated, that his account contained every sum due to his master; but it was proved, that a sum of 6s., which was the whole charge he had made for covering one mare, was not included in his account.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE (having conferred with Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE). This is not an embezzlement. To constitute a embezzlement, the prisoner must have received the money by virtue of his employment; and as it was his duty to take 30s., and not less than 20s., this sum of 6s. was not received by him by virtue of his employment. He must, therefore, be acquitted. Verdict-Not guilty.

Rising, for the prosecution.

Palmer, for the prisoner.

[Attorneys Clowes, and Palmer.]

*391]

*REX v. WYMER.

A box belonging to a Benefit Society was stolen from a room in a public-house. Two of the stewards had keys of this box; and, by the rules of the society, the landlord ought to have had a key, but in fact he had not:-Held, that the prisoner might be convicted on a count laying the property in the landlord alone.

INDICTMENT for burglary, and stealing the box of a benefit society. All the counts in the indictment, except one, laid the property to be in one of the stewards; and that one in the landlord of the public-house where it was kept. It appeared that there were four stewards of the Society, and that, by the rules, the landlord ought to have had a key of the box, but in fact he had none. The box was deposited in a room in the public-house, and two of the stewards had each a key. Mr. Justice J. PARKE intimated, that the case must rest on the count which stated the property to be in the landlord.

Palmer, for the prisoner, contended, that if there was any property in the landlord, it was a joint property between him and the stewards.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE. I am of opinion that there is sufficient evidence to go to the Jury of the property being in the landlord alone. Verdict-Guilty.

Palmer, for the prisoner.

*392]

*OLD BAILEY SESSION.

1830.

BEFORE MR. BARON GARROW, AND MR. JUSTICE J. PARKE.

REX v. BISPHAM. July 10.

It is not essential that witnesses who state that they would not believe another person on his oath, should have ever heard such person give evidence upon oath; as the real question is, whether the witnesses have such a knowledge of the person's character and conduct, as enables them conscientiously to say that it is impossible to place any reliance on any statement that such person may make.

INDICTMENT, charging the prisoner with forging a plate stamp.

A witness, named Neale, was called on the part of the prosecution, and his evidence made out nearly all the important parts of the case.

For the defence, a witness was called, who stated, that he had known Neale for three years, and would not believe him on his oath.

Brodrick, for the prosecution, asked the witness if he had ever known of Neale's being examined on oath; and he admitted that he had not.

GARROW, B. You have known him three years; have you such a knowledge of his general character and conduct, that you can conscientiously say, that, from what you know of him, it is impossible to place the least reliance on the truth of any statement that he may make?

The witness answered in the affirmative
GARROW, B. (in summing up).
VOL. XIX.-72

With respect to the credit that you ought 3 B 2

to give to the testimony of the witness *Neale, a person has been called
[*393
on the part of the prisoner, who has told you that he would not believe
Neale on his oath. That person was asked by the learned counsel for the prose-
cution, whether he had ever heard Neale examined on his oath. Now, that is
not the criterion; for, if the question, whether a witness was to be believed on
his oath depended on whether other persons had heard him examined, that class
of evidence would always be inapplicable where the witness to be discredited had
never been examined before. Every one must be examined for the first time on
some occasion or other; and were that criterion admitted, every man, no matter
how infamous, would be allowed to walk over the course once, merely because
nobody had ever heard him examined before. I take it, that, without ever hav
ing been examined on oath, a man may have been guilty of such immoral and
profligate conduct for a length of time, as to convince respectable persons that
his statements are wholly unworthy of belief. The question therefore really
amounts to this, has the witness such a want of moral character, that other per-
sons cannot trust to a word that he says.
Verdict-Not guilty.

Gurney, Brodrick, and R. Scarlett, for the prosecution.
C. Phillips, for the prisoner.

[Attorneys-Timms, and Humphreys.]

*SPECIAL COMMISSION AT THE OLD BAILEY. [*394

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BAYLEY, MR. JUSTICE BOSANQUET, AND NEWMAN KNOWLYS, ESQ., RECORDER.

In an indictment for murder committed by a British subject abroad, it must be averred that the prisoner and the deceased were subjects of his Majesty. To prove the allegation that the prisoner was a subject of his Majesty, his own declaration is evidence to go to the Jury, and it will be for them to say, whether they are satisfied that he is in fact a British born subject.

A bill of indictment for this offence ought not to state it to have been committed "at Boulogne, in the kingdom of France, to wit, at the parish of St. Mary-le-bow, &c.," and it being so stated, the Court directed the London venue to be struck out before the bill was found by the Grand Jury.

IN a duel fought at Boulogne in France, Lieutenant Joseph Crowther had been killed by Captain Helsham on the 1st of April, 1829; and the latter had been committed to Newgate by Mr. Minshull, a magistrate of Bow street, under the stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 7; but was afterwards admitted to bail by Lord Tenterden, C. J.

A special commission issued for the trial of Captain Helsham; and, in pur suance of it, a precept was issued, directing the sheriffs of London to summon a grand and petty jury.

Bayley, J., charged the Grand Jury; and a bill of indictment was presented to them, charging Captain Helsham with the murder of Lieutenant Crowther. It charged the murder to have been committed "at Boulogne, in the kingdom of France, to wit, at the parish of St. Mary-le-bow, in the ward of Cheap, &c." The Grand Jury objected to finding the bill, as it stated the death to have occurred in two different places.

BAYLEY, J. (having conferred with Bosanquet, J., and the Recorder) di. rected the words, "to wit, in the parish of St. Mary-le-bow, in the ward of Cheap, in the &c.," to be struck out. His Lordship also said, that it was deemed by the Court to be necessary to have inserted in the bill, an allegation that the