« 이전계속 »
e defendadess the con of the al evidence
the cohn Sinith, anhe goods to todos
said Thomas Archer did not then want for the said John Smith Reg. of Newcastle the said last mentioned two ends of black cloth or
ARCHER. any cloth whatever, as he the said Thomas Archer well knew at the time when he did so falsely pretend as last aforesaid. The de- 1855. fendants pleaded not guilty to all the counts, and issue was joined False on the part of the Crown.
- ContractOn the trial before the said Recorder, evidence was given Credit given sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant on every one of the four counts, unless the following objection taken by the counsel for the defendant be valid. The said counsel contended that the evidence showed that Samuel Hirst and John Holt, the two persons named in the indictment as owners of the goods obtained by the defendant, contracted to sell the goods to the defendant, not to the supposed John Sinith, and delivered and caused to be delivered to the defendant in pursuance of this contract, the goods for the defendant himself, and not for the supposed John Smith; and the said counsel contended that this being so, the defendant was entitled to an acquittal, although it should appear that such contract and such delivery in pursuance of such contract resulted from the falsehoods told by the defendant as charged in the indictment, and from the belief given to such case, falsehoods by Samuel Hirst and John Holt.
The jury, in answer to questions put to them by the Recorder, stated, that they were of opinion that the representations were made by the defendant as charged in the indictment, and that Samuel Hirst and John Holt believed such representations, and that such representations were false to the knowledge of the defendant; and Samuel Hirst and John Holt, in consequence of such belief, thinking that the defendant was a person with whom they might safely contract as being connected with the supposed John Smith and employed by him to obtain the goods, did mean to contract with the defendant, and not with the supposed John Smith, and did in pursuance of such contract deliver and cause to be delivered the goods to the defendant for the defendant himself, and not for the supposed John Smith.
The Recorder directed the jury, that upon this finding of the facts they ought to find a verdict of guilty, which they found accordingly.
The defendant was sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for nine calendar months; but execution of the judgment was respited, and the defendant not being able to give bail was committed to prison until the question hereinafter mentioned should have been considered. He is still in prison.
The question for the opinion of the Justices of either Bench, and Barons of the Exchequer is, whether the defendant ought to have been convicted under the circumstances above stated.
No counsel was instructed on behalf of the prisoner.
Pickering (for the prosecution. The only objection made in this case was, that the prosecutor entered into a contract to sell the goods to the prisoner as principal, and not as agent for the
supposed John Smith; but that makes no difference. The false R representations were made by the prisoner, and the prosecutor
was induced to deliver the goods to the prisoner by those false 1855. representations. False pretences
PARKE, B.-If a man only says that he wants the goods for - Contract, John Smith, does that amount to a false pretence that he is
Credit given employed by John Smith? It may mean that when he has to the prisoner.
bought them he intends to send them to John Smith; and then that is no false pretence of any fact as existing at that time; it is a mere promise of something future which is not within the statute. If I say, “I buy this ornament for the Emperor Napoleon," it would not necessarily mean, “I am employed by the Emperor to buy it;" and the meaning of the expressions in such a case would be a question for the jury. They must say whether the representation was of a fact, as that he was employed, or of an intention, as that he meant to send it to a particular person.
Pickering.—The jury have found the prisoner guilty; and the representation in this case, as alleged in the indictment, is this: that the prisoner was engaged in business with a person of wealth
WIGHTMAN, J.-If a man falsely says, “I am connected with a person of opulence; give me credit on that account,” and be thereby obtains money or goods, that is within the statute.
Pickering.–And that is precisely the present case.
POLLOCK, C. B.- We need not trouble you further upon this case, as we are all of opinion that the conviction is right.
rould not“ buy this oring future whichisting at that"
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
(Before POLLOCK, C. B., WIGHTMAN, J., CROMPTON, J.,
and CROWDER, J.)
Reg. v. ELIZABETH CHANDLER. (a)
Neglect to provide infant with necessary food— Averment that the mother
had the means of doing so— Evidence. An indictment for neglecting to provide an infant with sufficient food
alleged that the prisoner, who was the mother of the child, had the means of doing so. There was no evidence that she actually had the means of doing so ; but it was proved that she might have obtained
relief by applying to the relieving officer. Held, that this evidence did not prove the indictment, and that the con
viction was wrong. THE following case was reserved by Mr. Bramwell :~At the
1 Assizes and General Sessions of Gaol Delivery holden at Maidstone, on the 13th day of March last, Elizabeth Chåndler was tried and found guilty upon an indictment in the following form:
“KENT.-The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present that during the time hereinafter in this indictment mentioned, one Elizabeth Chandler was a single woman, and was the mother of a certain male child known by the name of Albert, of very tender age, and wholly unable, by reason of his tender age, to provide himself with food or nourishment or to take care of himself, and that during all the time aforesaid it was the duty of the said Elizabeth Chandler to protect, shelter and nourish the said child, and provide for and give and administer to the said child suitable food in proper and sufficient quantities for the nourishment and support of his body and the preservation of his health, she the said Elizabeth Chandler during all the time aforesaid being able and having the means to perform and fulfil her said duty; and the jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said Elizabeth Chandler, late of the parish of Speldhurst, in the county of Kent, well knowing the premises, and not regarding her duty in that behalf, but being a person of unfeeling and inhuman disposition, on the 1st day of
(a) Reported by A, BITTLESTON, Esq., Barrister-at Law.
Reg. October, in the year of our Lord 1855, at the parish aforesaid, in CUADER the county aforesaid, did unlawfully, wilfully and on purpose, give to
the said child food and nourishment in quantities wholly inadequate 1855. and insufficient for the support and preservation of the body and Neglect to
to health of the said child, and did unlawfully and wilfully omit, provide infant neglect and refuse to provide for and to give to the said child, with food, meat, drink or food in any sufficient or proper quantity whatsoever. Coop Whereby and by reason of the premises last aforesaid, the life of the
said child was endangered, and the said child became and was sick, ill, weak, starved and greatly emaciated in his body; to the great damage of the said child, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.
The first count was duly proved, except as to the allegation: “ She the said Elizabeth Chandler during all the time aforesaid being able and having the means to perform and fulfil the said duty.” As to that allegation the evidence was, that the child was a bastard child of the prisoner, and that she was cohabiting with a man to whom she was not married, and who was not the father of the child. There was no evidence of her actual possession of means of nourishing and maintaining the child as stated in the first count of the indictment, but it was proved that she could have applied to the relieving officer of the Poor Law Union in which she resided; that had she done so she would have been entitled to, and received relief for herself and the child adequate to their due support and maintenance, and that she had not made any such application; and it was contended by the counsel for the prosecution that this evidence satisfied the allegation above referred to. Entertaining doubts on this subject, and the validity of the first count in point of law being questioned, I have to request the judgment of the Court for the consideration of Crown Cases Reserved on these two points. Judgment on the said indictment stands respited, and the defendant was admitted to bail to receive judgment at the assizes next to be holden for the said county.
The case was not argued by counsel. Judgment. POLLOCK, C.B.- In this case no evidence was given that the
prisoner had the means of providing sufficient food for her child, but it was said that she was bound to apply to the relieving officer and would have had relief if she had." That may be so, but it does not prove the indictment, which alleges that she having the means, neglected to supply the child with sufficient food. It is admitted in the case that there was no evidence of her having the means; that being admitted, it is no answer to say that she might have procured the means by applying to the relieving officer. We are all of opinion that the conviction cannot be supported. The evidence does not fit the indictment.
PARKE, B.- It does not appear she had the means, though by possibility she might have obtained them. She had them not in fact, and whether she could obtain them is doubtful. WIGHTMAN, J., CROMPTON, J. and CROWDER, J. concurred.
and it wintisfied that and th have to
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.
April 28, 1855.
(Before POLLOCK, C. B., PARKE, B., WIGHTMAN, J.,
CROMPTON, J., and CROWDER, J.)
Reg. v. FORSTER. (a)
per evidence. base coin in a Levidence
Ullering counterfeit coin-Evidence of guilty knowledge—Subsequent uttering of base coin of a different denomination—Improper reception
of evidence. Upon a charge of uttering counterfeit coin, in order to prove guilty knowledge evidence is admissible of the subsequent uttering by the prisoner of counterfeit coin of a different denomination. The improper reception of evidence upon a criminal trial is not necessarily a ground for quashing the conviction, if the other evidence adduced be amply sufficient to sustain it. THE following case was reserved by Parke, B.:
1 The prisoner was indicted at the last Liverpool Assizes for having (after a previous conviction for uttering counterfeit coin) uttered a counterfeit crownpiece at Manchester, on the 12th December, 1854, to Jane Anne Needham, knowing it to be counterfeit.
The uttering a counterfeit crown on that day by the prisoner to Jane Anne Needham was proved.
To prove guilty knowledge, the uttering of another crownpiece by the prisoner at Manchester on the 11th December, 1854, was proved.
The prisoner on that occasion, on its being stated to her to be a bad crownpiece by the shopkeeper to whom it was given by her, said, she would bring her husband and daughter to show where she got it, and was permitted to depart on her promise to bring them, but she never returned.
In order further to prove guilty knowledge on the part of the prisoner, the prosecutor offered to give evidence of a subsequent uttering by the prisoner of a counterfeit shilling on the 4th January.
The counsel for the prisoner objected that a subsequent uttering of a different species of counterfeit coin was not admissible to show guilty knowledge at a prior time. I had some doubt as to the propriety of receiving the evidence, and intimated that I
(a) Reported by A. BITTLESTON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.