ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

who shall forge the seal or any process of the court, or who shall serve or enforce any such forged process, knowing the same to be forged, or deliver or cause to be delivered to any person any paper falsely purporting to be a copy of any summons or other process of the said court, knowing the same to be false, or who shall act or profess to act under any false colour or pretence of the process of the said court, shall be guilty of felony."

It appeared in evidence that John Kingstone had brought an action in the County Court of Warwickshire, against Joseph Wainwright, to recover 11. 7s. for goods sold and delivered. The summons bore date the 7th of May, 1853, and called on the defendant to appear on the 7th of June. He did not do so; and on the 30th of June the prisoner called at Wainwright's house, and said he was authorized by the court to receive the debt and costs, and if the amount was not paid on that day, or before ten o'clock the following morning, he should bring an execution and take the goods. The sum asked for by the prisoner was 17. 6s. 9d. for the debt. Wainwright showed him the summons claimed 17. 7s. The prisoner said there was a mistake, and if he, Wainwright, paid him 17. 8s. 9d. it would cover all expenses. The defendant went with the prisoner to a public house, and there paid the money.

CROMPTON, J., stopped the case for the prosecution, saying that, in his opinion, the charge was not made out, as he thought the act of Parliament applied to false instruments, and not to mere false representations as to the authority or employment of the prisoner. There was no acting or professing to act under the process of the County Court.

The prisoner was accordingly acquitted.

There was another indictment against him for a misdemeanor, in obtaining the money by falsely pretending that he was an officer of the County Court, and a person authorized by the court to apply to Wainwright for payment of the debt, and to settle the action. It appeared, however, doubtful whether the prisoner had not been authorized by Kingstone's son, to obtain the money, and the sum having been in fact paid on the faith that the prisoner was authorized by the plaintiff in the action, rather than by reason of any supposed authority from the County Court, the case broke down, and the prisoner was discharged.

Rupert Kettle for the prosecution.

The prisoner was not defended by counsel.

REG.

v.

MYOTT.

1854.

Felony.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

November 11, 1854.

(Before JERVIS, C.J., ALDERSON, B., COLERIDGE, J., MARTIN, B. and CROWDER, J.)

REG. v. MORGAN AND ANOTHER. (a)

Larceny-Fraud-False sale.

A. and B. by false representations induced C. to become the purchaser of a dress for 25s. They then took one guinea out of her hand, she being taken by surprise, and neither consenting or resisting, and left with her a dress of considerably inferior value, but refused to give her one which they had promised to give if she would buy that. Upon a case reserved the question put was, whether the facts warranted a verdict of guilty?

Held, that they did, the court being bound to assume that it was part of the fraud to obtain the property by a false sale.

[ocr errors]

T the last Quarter Sessions for the parts of Kesteven in the county of Lincoln, Hugh Morgan and John Mackeowan were indicted, for that they on the 29th Sept. 1854, feloniously did steal certain money of Jane Jones, of the moneys, goods, and chattels of the said Jane Jones.

Upon the trial it was proved that Jane Jones, the prosecutrix, lived at Stoke Hall, in these parts and county, as laundry maid; and it was also proved by her and Emily Smith, her fellow servant, that on the 29th Sept. last the two prisoners came to Stoke Hall, that Morgan, who was dressed as a sailor, represented himself to be a Frenchman, and unable to speak English, and that Mackeowan was his interpreter, and would explain. Mackeowan explained that Morgan was a sea captain, and must sell off his goods that night to get to his ship the next morning. Morgan produced and offered the prosecutrix a dress for sale, and signified, through his interpreter, that the price was 25s. and if she would give 25s. for it he would give her another dress worth 12s., which he also produced. The prosecutrix agreed, and having one sovereign and one shilling in her pocket she took it out, and whilst holding it in her hand Morgan opened her hand and took the guinea out of it. He

(a) Reported by A. BITTLESTON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

REG.

D.

ANOTHER.

1854.

did not take it forcibly, nor would prosecutrix say that it was against her will; nor was it by her consent. He took her by surprise. MORGAN AND Prosecutrix then borrowed 4s. of a fellow-servant, but Morgan refused to take it, "for she had borrowed it:" and, addressing the prosecutrix in English, he said she was a bad woman, and had told a lie, and he should not produce the other dress; he then laid down Larcenythe dress first offered, and packed up the other. Seeing the pri- Pretended sale. soners about to go away, the prosecutrix told the prisoner Morgan she should send some one after him if he did not produce her dress; he replied she might send for the devil, and both prisoners went away. The prosecutrix sent to the constable, and had both prisoners apprehended in a neighbouring village the same evening. Prosecutrix believed the dress left by the prisoners to be of the value of 14s. Emily Smith valued it at 9s.

Upon these facts the jury found both prisoners guilty, and they were sentenced to three calendar months' imprisonment in the House of Correction, and bail to appear and receive judgment not having been offered, they are now in prison upon such sentence. On the part of the prisoners it was contended that no felony was committed by them; that it was a mere breach of contract; that no felonious intent existed in their minds, and that the jury were not warranted on the foregoing facts in finding them guilty; and a case was urgently requested.

The question I now most respectfully submit to the court of Her Majesty's justices of either bench and the barons of the Exchequer, is whether the above facts warrant in point of law the finding of the jury in this case?

No counsel appeared.

JERVIS, C.J. (after stating the facts as above.)—–We are of opinion that the facts warrant the finding. We are bound to assume that the jury were properly directed by the chairman, and that they found that it was part of the scheme that the property was to be obtained by a false sale. If so, there was no contract, but a fraud whereby the felony was committed.

Conviction affirmed. (b)

(b) There are many cases in which prisoners have been convicted of larceny-where possession of the property has been fraudulently obtained by means of a pretended sale: (R. v. Campbell, Ry. & Moo. C. C. 179; R. v. Sharpless, 1 Leach, 92.)

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

November 11, 1854.

(Before JERVIS, C. J., ALDERSON, B., COLERIDGE, J., MARTIN, B., and CROWDER, J.)

REG. v. HOBSON. (a)

Felonious receiving-Evidence for the jury.

Upon an indictment for feloniously receiving a hat and a watch, it was proved that in consequence of information received from L. (the thief), a constable went to a room in a lodging-house where the prisoner slept, and, in a box in that room, found the stolen hat. The prisoner produced it at once, and admitted that L. had brought it there; but denied any knowledge of the watch. On the following day he was taken into custody, and, after he had left the house, he told the constable that he knew where the watch was, but did not like to say anything about it before the people in the house. The watch was not found at the first place to which he took the constable, but he afterwards sent a boy for it; and the boy having brought it to him, he gave it to the constable : Held, there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury of a feloniously receiving.

THE

HE prisoner, George Hobson, was tried at the West Riding Sessions, held at Rotherham on the 20th June last, upon a charge of feloniously receiving from William Levick one watch, one hat, and 1s., the property of James Birkenshaw, and was found guilty and sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the house of correction at Wakefield for twelve calendar months. William Levick had previously at the same sessions pleaded guilty to the theft. Upon the trial, William Laughton, a policeman, proved that on the 8th of June last he went to prisoner's house in consequence of something he had heard from William Levick, the party charged in the indictment as the thief; that Levick took witness there; that witness asked the prisoner, who was in bed, if Levick had brought a hat there; that the prisoner said "Yes;" that the prisoner then got out of bed and took the hat out of a box in the corner of a room, and gave the hat to witness; that witness asked the prisoner if he knew anything about the watch, that the prisoner said he did not; that witness went the next day to the prisoner's house and took him into custody; that witness told the (a) Reported by A. BITTLESTON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

prisoner that he (witness) would most likely trace the watch and who had it; that when witness and the prisoner got outside the house, the prisoner said he did not like to say anything about the watch before the folks in the house, but he knew where it wasthat it was planted-that it was at Mr. Wostenholme's; that witness and the prisoner went to Mr. Wostenholme's, but could not find a watch there; that prisoner then called to a boy and asked him to get the watch; that the watch was afterwards brought by the boy to the prisoner, who gave it to witness.

On cross-examination, the witness said that the house where the prisoner lived was a lodging-house; that witness did not know whether the thief Levick lived there or not, or whether or not the prisoner had exclusive possession of the room where the hat was found, that witness did not notice how many beds were in the room where the hat was found; that when the prisoner said he knew nothing about the watch, there were several people in the house standing round him. It was objected by the prisoner's counsel, that there was no evidence to go to the jury. First, as to the hat; because there was not sufficient evidence of the prisoner's possession of it, the house where the hat was found being a lodging-house, and the prisoner having had no exclusive possession of the room. Secondly, as to the watch; because the prisoner was not shown to have possession of it. All the evidence was, that the prisoner knew where the watch was. The court overruled the objection, being of opinion that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury; but granted a case for the opinion of the judges.

No counsel was instructed in this case.

JERVIS, C.J.-We are all clearly of opinion that there was evidence to go to the jury. Conviction affirmed.

REG.

V.

HOBSON.

1854.

Receiving-
Evidence.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »