ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

REG.

v.

FORSTER.

should reserve the point for the consideration of the Judges if the evidence should be received and the prisoner convicted; and considering the proof in the case, besides that of the subsequent 1855. uttering, I thought the evidence would have been withdrawn. Uttering base But on the part of the Crown it was thought very desirable to coin-Guilty have the point settled, as the case was of frequent occurrence in knowledge practice, and considerable doubt was entertained upon it, and -Subsequent therefore I reserved it.

uttering.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and voluntarily added that they found the verdict without considering the evidence of the subsequent uttering in the least.

The prisoner was sentenced to four years' penal servitude.

I pray the advice of the judges: (see 1 Phill. Evid. 510; Taylor, 250; Rosc. Crim. Evid. 85.)

This case was not argued by counsel.

PARKE, B.-I reserved this case in consequence of an intimation that the point is one of frequent occurrence, and one which the authorities of the Mint desire to have settled, and I have referred to several cases of forgery, where the objection has been allowed, unless the instruments were of the same description; (b) but after the declaration of the jury that the evidence objected to had not influenced their verdict, the court is not bound to consider the case, there being other evidence amply sufficient to sustain the conviction: (Russ. & Ry. 132.) The rule in that respect is different in criminal and civil cases.

POLLOCK, C. B.-I, however, think that the evidence was admissible. The value of it is another matter. It seems to be conceded that the subsequent uttering of another crownpiece would have been clearly admissible; and it seems to me that the difference in the description of bad money uttered by the prisoner at different times is a circumstance which can only go to the effect of the evidence, not to its admissibility. Evidence of some other dishonest act of a different kind of course would not do; but the uttering of base coin, though coin of a different denomination, is sufficiently connected with the offence charged to render the evidence admissible.

The other judges concurring,

Conviction affirmed.

(b) In Taverner's case (4 Car. & P. 413, n.) Lord Ellenborough, C.J., Thompson, C.B., and Lawrence J., held that upon an indictment for uttering a forged bank note, evidence of the subsequent uttering of another forged note was inadmissible to prove guilty knowledge, unless the latter uttering was in some way connected with the uttering which was the subject of the indictment, as by shewing that the notes were of the same manufacture. In Smith's case, ib. 411, evidence was tendered of the subsequent uttering of forged bills of exchange precisely similar to the one which was the subject of indictment, and Mr. Justice Gazelee, after consulting Alexander, C.B., was disposed to receive it; but upon an intimation that he should reserve the point, the evidence was withdrawn.

HOME CIRCUIT.

HERTFORD SPRING ASSIZES, 1855.

March 28.

(Before Mr. BARON PLATT.)

REG. v. WINCH AND CHAPLIN. (a)

Ownership of goods-Amendment-Record.

An indictment alleged that A. feloniously stole the goods of R. and another, and that B. feloniously received the goods so as aforesaid stolen; there was also a count against B. for the substantive felony of receiving the said goods. A. pleaded guilty on the trial of B.; there was no proof of the ownership of the goods as alleged in the indictment.

Quære, whether the first count against B. could, notwithstanding A. had pleaded guilty to the indictment as it stood, be amended by alleging the ownership to be in persons unknown.

Such an amendment was ordered with respect to the count for a substantive felony against B.

THEA

HE prisoner Winch was indicted for stealing certain goods the property of Edward Robinson and others, and Chaplin was charged in the same indictment with feloniously receiving the goods aforesaid, so as aforesaid stolen. There was also a count against Chaplin for the substantive felony of receiving the aforesaid goods.

On being arraigned Winch pleaded guilty, and Chaplin not guilty.

On the trial of Chaplin the stealing by Winch and the felonious receiving by Chaplin were clearly made out, but the prosecutor not appearing, there was no evidence of the names of the owners of the property as laid in the indictment. It was then suggested that the indictment might be amended by alleging the ownership of the property to be in certain persons to the jurors unknown, but Mr. Straight, the deputy clerk of the arraigns, pointed out the difficulty that might arise with respect to the plea of guilty already entered; since, Winch had confessed

(a) Reported by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

REG.

v.

WINCH AND
CHAPLIN.

1855.

Amendment.

to stealing the goods of Edward Robinson and others, but not those of persons unknown; so that to alter the record to convict Chaplin would be to falsify the record with respect to Winch. Formerly, all the facts might have been set out upon the record according to the truth, as, that Winch had confessed to stealing the Indictment goods of Edward Robinson and others; the subsequent trial of Chaplin and the amendment it was found necessary to make upon the trial, but the 3rd section of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, prevents the whole proceedings from appearing upon the record. It enacts that, "If it shall become necessary at any time for any purpose whatsoever, to draw up a formal record in any case where any amendment shall have been made under the provisions of that act, such record shall be drawn up in the form in which the indictment was, after such amendment was made, without taking any notice of the fact of such amendment having been made."

Eventually, PLATT, B., directed the record to be amended as far as respected the count for a subsequent felony, by changing the allegation of ownership to that of a person unknown, the verdict of guilty being subsequently entered upon that count, and Mr. Straight indorsed the following memorandum upon the record:-"A variance appearing between a statement in the last count, and the evidence offered in support thereof, namely, that the goods therein mentioned were, at the time of the felony therein mentioned, the goods of Edward Robinson and others: It is ordered that the indictment be amended according to the proof, and it was therefore amended accordingly in the form at present appearing."

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

APRIL SESSION, 1855.

April 11.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE ERLE.)

REG. v. JACKSON AND CRACHNELL. (a)

Evidence-Calling party to the record.

Where two prisoners are indicted together, and one of them having pleaded guilty, the other is desirous of calling him as a witness on his behalf,

Semble, that the proper course is to pass sentence upon him before he is examined.

THE

THE prisoners were indicted for feloniously uttering a forged 107. note, with intent to defraud. Jackson pleaded guilty, Crachnell pleaded not guilty.

Sleigh (for the prisoner Crachnell) proposed to call Jackson as a witness on behalf of his client.

ERLE, J.-Has this course ever been adopted before?

Sleigh said he was not aware of any case upon the precise point,(6) but it was very common to call a prisoner, who had pleaded guilty, on behalf of the prosecution, and he submitted that if the principle was right in the one case it was so in the other.

ERLE, J.-I have still some doubt in my mind on the subject. Whenever it has been found necessary to examine a prisoner, as is now proposed, I have always either directed an acquittal, or, the jury having convicted, I have passed sentence, and so put an end to the whole matter with respect to him before I have allowed him to give evidence; and I think this is the proper course. all events, I shall pursue it in this instance.

At

There being a previous conviction in the indictment against Jackson, to which he had pleaded not guilty, he was now given in charge to the jury, and evidence of a former conviction having

(a) Reported by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

(b) See R. v. Stewart, 1 Cox Crim. Cas. 174; and R. v. Archer, 3 ib. 228.

REG.

V.

been adduced, he was found guilty. He was then called up for JACKSON AND judgment, and sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. Sleigh was then allowed to call Jackson as a witness on behalf of Crachnell, who was

CRACHNELL.

1855.

Evidence.

Bodkin and Bayley for the prosecution.
Sleigh for the prisoner.

Acquitted.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

April 28, 1855.

(Before POLLOCK, C.B., PARKE, B., WIGHTMAN, J., and CROWDER, J.)

REG. v. FROST AND ANOTHER. (a)

Indictment-Description-Amendment-14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24. In an indictment for an assault upon the gamekeeper of the Duke of Cambridge, his Royal Highness was described as George William Frederick Charles Duke of Cambridge. The only witness to prove the averment deposed that "George William" were two of the names of the Duke, and that he believed the Duke had other christian names, but he could not say what they were.

Held, that the court below were right upon that evidence in not striking out the names Frederick Charles only, but that they would have been justified, under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24, in striking out all four names, leaving the title of the Duke of Cambridge to stand alone. THE following case was sent to the Court of Criminal Appeal by the Justices of the Surrey Sessions :

THE

At the General Quarter Sessions of the peace of our Lady the Queen, holden at Saint Mary, Newington, in and for the county of Surrey, on Tuesday, the 2nd day of January, in the year of our Lord, 1855, William Frost and John Russell were tried and convicted of an assault upon a gamekeeper, under the following indictment :

"SURREY-The jurors for our Lady the Queen upon their oath present that at the time of the committing of the assault hereinafter mentioned, to wit, on the ninth day of December, in

(a) Reported by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law,

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »