that, read this and burn it. I wants to see you when you come to my father's. Mind all of one mind and have one purse." (Indorsed) "Give this to Eliza Dance." Carrington, in reply, contended that the letters were forgeries, and commented on the fact that the defendant had not called Eliza Dance to prove that the second letter was not received by her. WILLIAMS, J., in summing up, said, "No one can doubt that the offence, if done at all, was against the will of the prosecutrix, considering her tender age, and, therefore, if you believe the evidence, the case is made out in law." With regard to the letters, the learned judge said, "although in strict rule of law the letters do not affect the credit of the prosecutrix, but of the witness Preston, it would be nevertheless absurd to say that in point of fact the question of the authenticity of these letters is not all important to this case; for if they were written by Preston it proves the capacity of these young children to form a deep design and conspiracy to injure the defendant. If established, it is impossible say that the whole case is not affected by them." He observed, with reference to the observations of the counsel for the prosecution, that it was not to be expected that the defendant would call Eliza Dance, for it is not sought to be concealed that this is only one of a series of charges, and that she is a witness hostile to him. The prisoner was convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, with hard labour. Carrington applied for the costs of the prosecution to be allowed, under the provisions of the statute 14 & 15 Vict. c. 55. WILLIAMS, J., after referring to the statute, (c) said there was a difficulty in this case, that although the section recites the statute of George the Fourth, which is applicable to all charges of assault, the power conferred on courts of assize and sessions to order payment of the costs of the prosecution, is confined to cases of assault brought before the justices for summary decision. If not brought before the justices in the first instance for summary decision, I have no power to award costs; and therefore I must be (c) The 14 & 15 Vict. c. 55, s. 3, is as follows:-" And whereas by an act of the ninth year of King George the Fourth, chapter thirty-one, it is enacted that where any person shall unlawfully assault or beat any other person, it shall be lawful for two justices of the peace, apa complaint of the party aggrieved, to hear and determine such offence; and it is by the said act provided, that in case the justices shall find the assault or battery complained of to have been accompanied by any attempt to commit felony, or shall be of opinion that the same is from any other circumstance a fit subject for a prosecution by indictment, they shall abstain from any adjudication thereupon, and shall deal with the case in all respects in the same manner as they would have done before the passing of the said act: and whereas it is expedient that courts before whom such indictments shall be tried shall have power to order payment of costs to parties so bound by recognizance to prosecute or give evidence: be it enacted, that in every tase of assault so brought before such justices for summary decision in which the justices shall be of opinion that the same is a fit subject for prosecution by indictment, and shall therebind the complainant and witnesses in recognizance to prosecute and give evidence at the sizes or sessions of the peace, every such court is hereby authorized and empowered at its discretion to order payment of the costs and expenses of the prosecutor and witnesses so appearing before such court under such recognizance, together with compensation for their trouble and Juss of time, in the same manner as courts are authorized and empowered to order the same ir cases of felony." REG. v M.GAVARAN. 1852. Indecent assault Practice Costs. REG. v M'GAVARAN. 1852. satisfied that the case was originally brought before the justices to be dealt with summarily. It certainly seems very strange that I should have no power to award costs in a case of assault, where the party charged is brought before the justices in the ordinary way, to be committed for trial; but there being that distinction, I must -Evidence- have some evidence that the party charged was brought before the Practice committing magistrates for summary jurisdiction. In other respects I think this is an assault in which costs ought certainly to be allowed. Indecent assault Costs. Carrington then produced the original summons, and handed it to the learned judge. It was in the following form: "Whereas information and complaint has this day been made before the undersigned [c.], for that you the said Hugh M'Gavaran did assault and illtreat Emma Preston, of the parish of Chieveley aforesaid, against the form of the statute in that behalf. These are, therefore, to command you, in Her Majesty's name, to be and appear on Thursday, the 27th day of May instant, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, at [&c], to answer the said information and complaint, and to be further dealt with according to law." Mr. JUSTICE WILLIAMS said he thought this was sufficient evidence to show that the justices might have dealt summarily with the case, and he therefore directed the costs of the prosecution to be allowed. OXFORD CIRCUIT. OXFORDSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES, 1852. Oxford, July 17. (Before Mr. JUSTICE WILLIAMS.) REG. v. NEVILLE. (a) Perjury-Variance-Amendment-Statute 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 1 Evidence. In an indictment for perjury, the perjury was alleged to have been committed on the trial of an indictment against B., for setting fire to a certain barn of one P. In support of the averment, a certificate of the trial and conviction of B. was produced, but the offence there mentioned was setting fire to "one stack of barley." It appearing that the offence was, in fact, the same, the barn and the stack having been destroyed by one fire, Held, that the indictment might be amended under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 1. A witness for the prosecution called to prove that B. was not at the barn at the time it was set on fire (and consequently that the evidence of the defendant who swore at the trial that he had seen B. set it on fire, was false), admitted on cross-examination that he had given a different account on the former trial, and had on that occasion corroborated the testimony of the present defendant, but now alleged that he was persuaded by W. (who had left England) to forswear himself on the former trial. Held, that on re-examination the witness might be asked whether he had made a statement to C. immediately after the trial respecting his evidence and respecting W., and that C. might be called to corroborate him as to the general fact, but that the particulars of the statement to C. were inadmissible, and that a person who was present at the interview between the witness and W. might be called to prove the fact of the conversation, but not the particulars. THE THE defendant, Edward Neville, was indicted for perjury. The indictment alleged that, "at a General Sessions of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery of the gaol of our said Lady the Queen for the county of Oxford, holden at Oxford, in and for the said county, on the 16th day of July, A.D. 1851, before Sir William Erle, Knight, one of the justices of our said (a) Reported by J. E. DAVIS, Esq, Barrister-at-Law. REG. v. NEVILLE. 1852. Practice- Lady the Queen, assigned to hold pleas before the Queen herself, and Sir Samuel Martin, Knight, one of the Barons of our said Lady the Queen, of her Court of Exchequer, justices assigned to deliver the said gaol of the prisoners therein being, one John Barnes, one Benjamin Barnes, and one Richard Gascoigne were in due form of law tried by a certain jury of the county aforesaid, upon a certain indictment then and there depending against them for having, on the 7th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1851, at the parish of Bloxham, in the county aforesaid, feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously set fire to a certain barn of one James Page, there situate, with intent to injure the said James Page. The indictment then proceeded to aver that Edward Neville was duly sworn as a witness, and that upon the said trial "it became and was a material question and subject of inquiry, whether the said Benjamin Barues set fire to the said barn of the said James Page, and whether the said Benjamin Barnes was at the said barn on the day of the fire of the said barn, to wit, on the said seventh day of March, in the year aforesaid, and whether the said Edward Neville saw the said Benjamin Barnes come through a gate called the Clap-gate, at Bloxham aforesaid, on the day last aforesaid, and whether the said Edward Neville, on the day last aforesaid, saw the said Benjamin Barnes strike a match on a tombstone in the churchyard at Bloxham aforesaid, and whether the said Edward Neville saw the said Benjamin Barnes put the said match in his the said Benjamin Barnes' hat, and whether the said Edward Neville saw the said Benjamin Barnes then go to the said barn, and whether the said Edward Neville saw the said Benjamin Barnes light a piece of paper, and put it into a hole in the wall of the said barn; and whether the said Edward Neville saw the said Benjamin Barnes go back through the said Clap-gate; and whether the said Edward Neville saw the said Benjamin Barnes running, and whether the said Edward Neville went to look after the said Benjamin Barnes, and whether the said Edward Neville saw the said Benjamin Barnes and the said Richard Gascoigne running across a certain close, called the Clump Ground, towards a certain road, called the Barford-road; and the jurors first aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Edward Neville, being so sworn as aforesaid, devising and wickedly intending that the said Benjamin Barnes should be unjustly convicted of the said felony so charged against him, then and there, to wit, on the said sixteenth day of July, A.D., 1851, at the said General Session of Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery of the gaol aforesaid, on the trial of the said indictment, and as such witness as aforesaid, and so being sworn as aforesaid, unlawfully, falsely, corruptly, knowingly, wilfully, and maliciously, did before and to the said court and jury, depose and swear and give evidence amongst other things in substance and to the effect following; that is to say, that he the said Edward Neville, on the day of the fire at the said barn (meaning the said seventh day of March in the year aforesaid, saw the said Benjamin Barnes come through the Clap-gate (meaning the Clap-gate aforesaid), that a person coming Cripps, for the prosecution. Pigott, for the defendant. It appeared from the statement of the case for the prosecution, that several fires occurred at Bloxham, about the month of March, 1851, which were the subject of several indictments against Benjamin Barnes and others. It also appeared that the burning of the barn was accompanied by the burning of a stack of barley adjoining. To prove the inducement in the indictment, a certificate of the conviction of Benjamin Barnes was produced. It was in the following terins: "At the Assizes and General Session of the Delivery of the Gaol of our Lady the Queen, holden at Oxford, on Wednesday, the 16th day of July, in the fifteenth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, before Sir William Erle, Knight, one, &c., Sir Samuel Martin, Knight, and other their fellows, justices of our said Lady the Queen, assigned to deliver her gaol of the prisoners therein being, Benjamin Barnes was, in due form of law, tried and convicted on a certain indictment against him, for that he, on the 7th day of March, in the fourteenth year of our said Lady Queen Victoria, with force and arms, at the parish of Bloxham, in the said county of Oxford, feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously did set fire to one stack of barley, of the value of twenty pounds, of the property, goods, and chattels of James Page, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace, &c.; and the said Benjamin Barnes was there REG. v. NEVILLE. 1852. Practice Perjury- |