WIGHTMAN, J.-There are a great many reported cases where the poison was placed in a situation for persons to take it.

Streeten, for the prosecution.-Reg. v. Cadman was for actually administering, and not for attempting to administer. Harley's case (4 C. & P. 369) is precisely in point. There a servant put poison into a coffee-pot which contained coffee, and when her mistress came down to breakfast, the servant told her that she had put the coffee-pot by the side of the grate for her (the mistress's) breakfast, and the mistress thereupon drank the coffee, and it was held that this was a "causing the poison to be taken," within the stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 11.

Huddleston, in reply.-Harley's case differed from the present. There was in that case an attempt to administer and to induce the prisoner's mistress to take the poison. There must be some act done.

WIGHTMAN, J.-In my opinion there is an act in this case, by putting the poison in the sugar basin.

Huddleston then addressed the jury.

WIGHTMAN, J., in summing up the case, said:-There are two questions in this case involving others. The first is, whether the prisoner did attempt to administer a poison? If she did, the next is whether she made that attempt with intent to murder. If you are not satisfied on either of those points, you will acquit the prisoner. With respect to the first point,-Did she attempt to administer a poison? (The learned judge then went through the evidence.) With regard to the statements made to the police officer, his lordship observed that, according to the strict line of duty, it was improper in the constable to put the questions to the prisoner, but his conduct did not amount to a cross-questioning. She told him she put it in the sugar. If she put it there intending that it should be taken, that is an attempt to administer it. Then, was it with intent to murder? The means used were not sufficient, for it required a larger quantity of the ingredient to take away life, but the prisoner might not have known what quantity was requisite for that purpose. On the other hand, On the other hand, she may have known, and, knowing, may have intended simply to annoy the prosecutor in revenge for his treatment of her husband.

The jury acquitted the prisoner.

REG.

v.

DALE.

1852.

Attempt to poisonEvidence.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.

WORCESTER SPRING ASSIZES, 1852.

March 6.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE WIGHTMAN.)

REG. v. JOHNSON. (a)

Forgery-Evidence of uttering.

On a charge of uttering an order or request for the delivery of goods, proof of the receipt of the goods by the prisoner is no evidence of the

utterance.

Where, therefore, the prisoner was indicted in one count for forging, and in another count for uttering, an order for goods to be forwarded by train, and the evidence failed to show that the order was written by the prisoner, and no direct proof was offered of the utterance: Held, that the uttering could not be inferred from proof that the prisoner attended at the station to which the goods were forwarded, and inquired for parcels addressed as mentioned in the order, and represented to the porter that they were required for a funeral, for which the goods ordered were appropriate; and, consequently, that there was no evidence to go to the jury against the prisoner.

THE

HE prisoner, Henry Johnson, was indicted for forging and uttering certain requests or orders, for the delivery of goods. The first count of the indictment alleged that the prisoner, on the 27th of September, 1851, forged a certain request for the delivery of goods with intent to defraud Thomas Cook and others.

A second count alleged that the prisoner, on the same day, forged a certain other request for the delivery of goods, with intent to defraud John Bradbury and others.

In other counts of the indictment, the documents were described as "orders" for the delivery of goods, and the prisoner was also charged with uttering them knowing them to be forged.

Huddleston, for the prosecution.

W. H. Cooke, for the prisoner.

On the part of the prosecution it was proved, that the following

(a) Reported by J. E. DAVIES, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

order was received by Messrs. Cook, Sons, and Co., wholesale mercers, London, by post, on the 27th of September, 1851:—

66

ᎡᎬᏀ .

v.

JOHNSON.

1852.

Bromsgrove, 26th September.

Messrs. Cook and Sons, having a customer of the name of Thomas at Bromsgrove, duly executed the order, and forwarded the goods in a box by railway as directed.

Mr. Thomas, a draper of Bromsgrove, proved that he was the only person of the name carrying on the drapery business at that town, that he dealt with Messrs. Cook and Sons, but the order in question was not in his handwriting.

A witness named Giles stated his belief that the order was in the prisoner's handwriting.

A similar order, the subject of the second count, for forty yards of Paramatta and other articles, was received on the same day by Messrs. Bradbury, Greatorex, and Beall, and executed by them, being forwarded in a paper parcel. Mr. Thomas proved that this order was not in his handwriting, but the witness Giles declined to say that it was in the prisoner's handwriting.

James Meyer, a railway porter at the Bromsgrove station, stated that on the evening of the 27th of September, two parcels arrived. at the station directed to Mr. D. T. Thomas, Bromsgrove, the one a box, the other a paper parcel. The prisoner came in and asked if there were some parcels for Mr. Thomas, and, being told there were, inquired the charge for carriage. The witness informed him, but said he had not time to enter the parcels in the books, but would send them up into the town by the next omnibus, after the arrival of another train. The prisoner said that would not do, as the things were wanted for a funeral, and he could not go without them. The witness consequently delivered them to the driver of the omnibus then going to the town, and gave him the entry-book to get the signature of the party, the prisoner saying he would pay the carriage of them on their delivery in the town. He proceeded in the omnibus; and, from the evidence of the driver and others, it appeared the goods were ultimately given up to him.

The prisoner was taken into custody some time after in London. On the back of a letter found in his possession the name of "Bradbury, Greatorex, and Beall," was found written.

The first order having been put in and read by the officer of the court,

Huddleston proposed to have the other order read also.

W. H. Cooke objected, that the prisoner had not been connected with that order at all.

Huddleston.-There is no direct proof of the forgery or uttering, but the prisoner having inquired for the parcels, and said they

REG.

v.

JOHNSON.

1852.

Forgery-
Evidence.

were wanting for a funeral and he could not wait, showed that he had a knowledge of the contents of the forged document received by Messrs. Bradbury and Co. The name of the firm was also found on a letter in the prisoner's possession.

WIGHTMAN, J.-If the evidence of the receipt of the goods was given as proof of the uttering, that is to say, to show a guilty knowledge, I am of opinion it is no evidence in either case of the utterance by the prisoner; neither order has been traced to him beyond the proof of the handwriting in the one case. If no proof of handwriting had been given, I should have rejected the evidence of the receipt of the goods altogether. As it is, I shall tell the jury that there is no evidence-not the slightest-of the uttering of either order. There is the evidence of forgery in the one case, but no evidence at all in the other. This is not a charge for obtaining goods by false pretences. A great deal of evidence has been given which no doubt was thought applicable, but I am at a loss to see how it can be applied to this case. It is no proof of forgery or uttering. But for the evidence of the forgery in the one case, I should have been bound to tell the jury that there was not a scintilla of evidence against the prisoner; for the proof of the receipt of the goods is no evidence of uttering the order.

The case accordingly went to the jury on the evidence of the handwriting of the order to Messrs. Cook and Sons, and the prisoner was ultimately convicted.

OXFORD CRCUIT.

WORCESTER SPRING ASSIZES, 1852.

March 8.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE WIGHTMAN.)

REG. v. NEWALL. (a)

Perjury-Evidence-Proof of charge before justices, upon the hearing of which perjury is alleged.

The defendant was indicted for perjury alleged to have been committed by him on the hearing before justices of a summons charging him with being the father of an illegitimate child:

Held, that, to support the indictment, it was necessary to give evidence of the charge made by the mother, either by production of the original order made thereon, or by giving secondary evidence of the summons after notice to the defendant to produce it; and that, in the absence of such notice, it was not sufficient to produce the minutes of the proceedings by the clerk to the justices, those minutes being of no greater authority than the notes of a short-hand writer.

THE defendant was indicted for perjury. The indictment

alleged that "at a petty sessions of the peace holden in and for the borough of Kidderminster, in the said county [of Worcester], on the 6th day of February, A. D. 1852, before William Boycott, the younger, William Nicholls, and Henry Talbot, esquires, justices of our said Lady the Queen, assigned to keep the peace in and for the said borough, and also to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses, and other misdemeanors in the said borough committed, Richard Newall appeared in pursuance of a certain summons requiring him to answer any complaint which one Ann Jones should then and there make against him touching her having been delivered of a bastard child, of which she alleged him to be the father, and for the maintenance whereof she had given proof that he did, within twelve calendar months after its birth, pay money; and the said Richard Newall then and there, upon the hearing of the said complaint, offered himself as a witness for and on behalf of himself, the said Richard Newall, and was then and there duly sworn," &c. The indictment then proceeded to allege, that upon the said hearing certain questions

(a) Reported by J. E. DAVIS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.