ABDUCTION.

In order to constitute the offence of abduction
within stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 20, it is not
necessary that the girl should be taken by
force, either actual or constructive, or be
taken out of the actual possession of the
parent or guardian. It is enough if she be
persuaded by the prisoner to leave her home,
and the control of the parent continues down
to the time of the taking.

Where, therefore, the prisoner persuaded
a girl under sixteen to meet him at a place
two miles from her father's house, where she
lived, for the purpose of going with him to
America; and she did so voluntarily, leaving
her home alone, then meeting the prisoner
at the place appointed, and afterwards tra
velling with him to London:

Held, that he was guilty of abduction.
Reg. v. Manktelow, 143

ADMINISTERING.

What is an attempt to administer poison, 14

ARREST.

Unlawful, by a constable, 371

ASSAULT.

A schoolmaster who places his hands inde-
cently on the person of a female pupil is
guilty of an indecent assault, although the
pupil is thirteen years of age, and does not
make any actual resistance.

Letters relating to the charge, written by
one of the scholars who is examined as a
witness for the prosecution, may, on her
denial of the handwriting, be proved and
given in evidence on the part of the defen-
dant for the purpose of affecting the wit-
ness's credit, and showing the capacity of
the scholars to conspire to make a false
charge against him, although the prosecutrix

VOL. VI.

is not proved to have received the letters, or
had any knowledge of their contents.

To enable the Court to order the costs of
such a prosecution to be allowed, it is neces-
sary, under the stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 55,
s. 3, to show that the case was originally
brought before the justices for summary
decision.

The production of the original summons
to the defendant, setting out the complaint,
and requiring him to appear before the jus-
tices to 66
answer the same information and
complaint, and to be further dealt with ac-
cording to law," is sufficient evidence of the
fact required, to enable the Court to order
payment of the costs of the prosecution.
Reg. v. M'Gavuran, 64

A. committed an assault upon a constable,
who, two hours afterwards, having obtained
assistance, and when there was no danger
of any renewal of the assault, attempted to
apprehend him, and was wounded in the
attempt:

Held, that his apprehension at that time
was unlawful: and that he was improperly
convicted of wounding the constable with
intent to prevent his lawful apprehension.
Reg. v. Walker, 371

AUTREFOIS ACQUIT.
Plea of, in murder, 178

BAIL IN ERROR.

A defendant in misdemeanor having obtained
a writ of error to the Exchequer Chamber,
entered into a recognizance with two sure-
ties approved by a judge, the condition of
which was to prosecute the writ of error
with effect; to surrender personally on the
hearing of the writ of error; and, in case the
judgment should be affirmed, to surrender
himself to the Court of Exchequer Chamber
to be further dealt with according to law:

2 a

rant the jury in finding a verdict for the
statutable misdemeanor of endeavouring to
conceal the birth. Reg. v. Goode, 318

CONFESSION.

Upon the trial of an indictment for an un-
natural crime with a mare, one of the wit-
nesses, in the presence of T. the owner of
the mare, threatened to give the prisoner in
charge to the police if he did not tell what
business he had in T.'s stable, where the
inare was. At that moment the charge had
not been made known to the prisoner, but
it was immediately afterwards, and then he
confessed.

Held, that this confession was inadmis-
sible in evidence, having been made under
the influence of a threat held out to him in
the presence of one, who being the owner of
the mare, was likely to prosecute for the
offence. Reg. v. Luckhurst, 243
A maid-servant under a charge of setting fire
to a farm building belonging to her master,
was given into the temporary custody of a
married daughter of her master, who did
not live in the house, and had no control
over her as her mistress. Whilst they
were alone together, the daughter said to
the prisoner, "I am sorry for you, you ought
to have known better; tell the truth, whe-
ther you did it or no ;" and upon the pri-
soner replying, “I am innocent,'
" added,
"don't run your soul into more sin, but tell
the truth. She then confessed.

Held that the confession was admissible,
for that the words used did not amount to
a threat or inducement, nor were they used
by any person in authority. Reg. v. Jane
Sleeman, 246

CONSPIRACY.

Practice where prisoners have severed in their
challenges, 6.

1. An indictinent alleged that the defendants
I. W., C. W. and J. W., being persons in
indigent circumstances, and intending to
defraud tradesmen who should supply them
with goods upon credit, conspired to cause
J. W. to be reputed and believed to be a
person of considerable property, and in
opulent circumstances, for the purpose and
with the intent of cheating and defrauding
divers persons being tradesmen, who should
bargain with them for the sale to the said
I. W., of goods, &c. the property of such
last-mentioned persons, of great quantities
of such goods, without paying for the same,
with intent to obtain to themselves money
and other profits.

Held, that this indictment was not sup-
ported by proof that the defendants C. W.
and J. W. being the wife and daughter of
the other defendant I. W., represented that
they were in independent circumstances, their
income being interest of money received
monthly; at another time, when engaging
lodgings, that they were not in the habit of
living in lodgings, and that they obtained
various goods from tradesmen on credit,
under circumstances that showed an intent
to defraud, but no proof being adduced that
those goods were obtained by reason of any
of those general statements.

2. Another count alleged a similar con-
spiracy to represent I. W. to be a person of
considerable property and fit to be trusted,
and by means thereof to cheat and defraud
persons who should let to the said I. W.
lodgings for hire, of divers large sums of
money, being the sums agreed to be paid for
the hire of such lodgings.

Held, that this count was not supported by
proof of the representations above men-
tioned, and that the defendants went to
various houses taking lodgings, and quitting
them without notice or payment; for, if an
indictable offence at all, the object of the
defendants was to obtain possession of the
lodgings, and not to deprive him of the
price or profits of the rooms.

3. A count charging, the defendants with
conspiring, by divers subtle means and false
pretences, to obtain goods and chattels from
H. B., a tradesman, without paying for
them, with intent to defraud him thereof, is
supported by proof of overt acts, from which
a conspiracy may be inferred, without proof
of any such false pretence as is required in
an ordinary indictment for obtaining goods
by false pretences.

4. Quære, whether a count charging a con-
spiracy by divers subtle means and false
pretences, to obtain goods and chattels from
divers persons being tradesmen, without
paying for them, with intent to defraud them
of the same, is bad in arrest of judgment or
otherwise, for not setting out the names of
the parties defrauded or intended to be
defrauded, or making excuse for not doing

So.

Semble, that the ordinary form of indict-
ment for false pretences, which after stating
the false pretence, alleges that, by means of
which false pretence, the defendants ob-
tained the goods or money, is sufficient, and
that the substitution of the words "by
reason of" for "by means of " is equally
unobjectionable. Reg. v. Whitehouse, 38
Where an indictment for conspiracy charges
the offence in general terms, the defendant is
2 a 2

entitled to particulars of the charge, although
there has been a previous committal by a
magistrate.

Therefore, where an indictment contained
counts charging a conspiracy to cheat trades-
men of goods, without mentioning any
specific case, or name, time, or place:

Held, that the defendant was entitled to
such particulars. Reg. v. Rycroft and others,
76

In support of an indictment charging the de-
fendants with a conspiracy to defraud and
deprive B. of certain leasehold messuages,
whereof the said B. was lawfully possessed,
and to cheat and defraud her of the rents
and profits of the said messuages; the
evidence as to B.'s title was, that F., before
her death, directed S. her next-of-kin, to
convey the messuages to B. on account of
a supposed quitable claim of B. to money
received by F. S., after the death of F.,
and before administration, executed an agree-
ment to assign to B., and went with her to
the houses, and pointed out the property,
and said B. was landlady, and he hoped the
tenants would not shuffle with her as they
had with F. B. atterwards received a small
sum as rent. There was no proof that F.
or S. were ever in possession, and no other
evidence of B.'s title.

Held, that there was some evidence of a
possession by B. to support the averment
in the indictment. Reg. v. Whitehouse and
another, 129

On an indictment against A., B., C., D., E.,
F., G., and H., for conspiracy to cheat M.
by selling a glandered horse as a sound
horse, the evidence was, that A. having
previously cheated M. by selling him a
kicking horse, the defendants B., C., D.,
and E., obtained that horse from M. in
exchange for a glandered horse, which he
subsequently sold. A., accompanied by G.,
afterwards sold M. another horse, in which
transaction the latter was again defrauded.
Some evidence was given to show that A.
was frequently in company with some of the
other defendants, and that he was aware of
a previous sale of the glandered horse by
them, but there was no other evidence to
connect him with its sale to M.

Held, that in the absence of any evidence
clearly leading to the conclusion that A. was
a party to that sale, there was no evidence
of a conspiracy to go to the jury against him.
Reg. v. Read, 134

An agreement with other persons by a witness
who has been bound over to prosecute and
give evidence on an indictable misdemeanor,
not to appear on the trial, is an indictable
offence, as being an agreement to obstruct

the due course of law and justice; and the
indictment may allege that to have been
the object of the defendants, although their
immediate intention had no reference to
the obstruction of justice; but was simply
to extricate themselves from a scrape, and
the defeat of justice was merely the effect of
the conspiracy. Therefore, where H., having
upon oath charged B. with fraud, and being
bound over to prosecute, was subsequently
induced to make an affidavit of B.'s inno-
cence, and H. and his friends, in order to
avoid the consequences of B.'s contradictory
statements on oath, agreed, upon receiving
a cheque from B.'s wife for a sum nearly
equal to the amount of H.'s recognizances,
to forfeit those recognizances by abstaining
from prosecuting, and also to return the
amount of the cheque if H. was not called
upon his recognizances:

Held, that the facts supported an indict-
ment charging H. and his friends with a
conspiracy to obstruct and defeat the due
course of law and justice; but

Held, that the facts did not support counts
in the indictment, charging the conspiracy
to be to obtain the money from the wife of
B., and to cheat and defraud him of the

same.

Notice to produce the cheque served at the
office of the London agents for the country
attorney of the defendants at three p.m. the
day before the commencement of the trial:

Held, sufficient to let in secondary evi-
dence of its contents:

Held, also, that such secondary evidence
was admissible, although it appeared that
the cheque had been seized by the sheriff
under a levy upon the effects of H. for the
amount of the estreated recognizance.

B., having been admitted to bail to answer
the charge of H., did not surrender to take
his trial, but absconded:

Held, that his wife, who was examined as
a witness on the indictment against H. and
others for conspiracy, might refuse to answer
a question whether she had not seen her
husband at a particular time or place, she
having assigned as a reason for not answer
ing it, that her husband had not appeared
upon his recognizance. Reg. v. Hamp, 167
The offence of conspiring may be committed
by conspiracy to use unlawful means for the
accomplishment of a lawful object; and
where A. and B., by false representations
made to C., respecting a horse which the
latter has sold to A., induced him to accept
a smaller sum in satisfaction of the agreed
price:

Held, that, although C. would not be
bound by his agreement to accept the smaller