see ante, p. 119, 120; or by proving any facts from which the jury may reasonably infer it. If it were wilfully done, and would have had the effect of setting fire to the building if the fire had not been extinguished, this would well warrant the jury in thinking that the defendant set fire to the straw, for the purpose of setting fire to the building.

4. The intent to injure or defraud, as ante, p. 488.

Setting fire to a Church or Chapel.

Indictment.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their

to wit. Soath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord -, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously did set fire to the parish church ["church or chapel, or any chapel for the religious worship of persons dissenting from the united church of England and Ireland"] situate in the parish of in the county of -: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

Felony; transportation for life, or not less than fifteen years; or imprisonment, [with or without hard labour, and solitary for not more than a month at a time, or three months in a year, s. 12] for not more than three years. 1 Vict. c. 89, s. 3. Accessories before the fact, the same punishment; accessories after the fact, imprisonment, &c., for not more than two years. Id. s. 11, As to costs, see ante, p. 186; costs of apprehension, ante, p. 189.

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment, it must be proved

1. That the defendant set fire to the church or chapel, as ante, p. 486. If it be proved that he did it wilfully, the jury may fairly presume that he did it maliciously.

2. That the church or chapel is situate as described in the indictment. And if the indictment state it to be a chapel for the religious worship of Protestant Dissenters or Roman Catholics, it must be proved to have been registered or recorded, as stated in the indictment; which may be done by the clerk of the peace producing the book, &c., in which the same was registered, or perhaps by an examined copy of the entry.

Riotously beginning to demolish a Church, House, §c.

Indictment.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., E. F., and G. H., together with divers other persons to the jurors aforesaid unknown, on the day of in the year of our Lord unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously did assemble together, to the disturbance of the public peace; and being then so unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled together as aforesaid, did then unlawfully, feloniously, and with force [begin to] demolish [" demolish, pull down, or destroy, or begin to demolish, pull down, or destroy"] a certain dwellinghouse of C. D., ["any church or chapel, or any chapel for the religious worship of persons dissenting from the united church of England and Ireland, duly registered or recorded, -or any house, stable, coach-house, outhouse, warehouse, office, shop, mill, malt-house, hop-oast, barn, or granary,— or any building or erection used in carrying on any trade or manufacture, or any branch thereof,- —or any machinery, whether fixed or moveable, prepared for or employed in any manufacture, or in any branch thereof,- -or any steam engine or other engine for sinking, draining, or working any mine, or any staith, building, or erection used in conducting the business of any mine, or any bridge, waggon-way, or trunk for conveying minerals from any mine,"] situate in the parish of in the county of - against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

Felony; 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 30, s. 8; transportation for life, or for any term not less than seven years;—or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for not more than three years. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 10.

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove

1. That the prisoners and others, to the number of three at the least, assembled together, in a manner calculated, either from their numbers, threats, or gestures, &c., to inspire terror.

2. That the assembly began "with force" to demolish, pull down, or destroy the house in question. Where rioters attack

a house, it must appear to be their intention to destroy or demolish the house altogether, to bring them within this statute, as beginning to demolish, &c. Where it appeared that the prisoners and others, in the night time, riotously broke into the prosecutor's house, broke some of the furniture and all the windows, and then went away, it appearing that there was nothing to prevent the rioters from doing further damage if they thought fit: Littledale, J., held that this was not a beginning to demolish, within the meaning of the Act; to bring a case within the Act, it must appear that the rioters intended to demolish the house, and not to injure it merely. R. v. Thomas, 4 Car. & P. 237. So, where, in an election riot, the rioters, who were of the yellow party, attacked a publichouse frequented by the opposite party, entered it by force, many of them crying out to the landlord “turn out the bloody blues or we will have the house down;" they destroyed every moveable thing they could find, glass, plates, chairs, &c., and some fixtures, windows, window frames, &c., and they wrenched away the iron bars from one window, and with them some of the surrounding brick work; on a cry being raised that the police were coming, they quitted the premises; but one of the witnesses, the landlord's daughter, said that they seemed to have done all they wanted to do, and were going away at that time, she did not suppose that they were going to pull down the very walls of the house: Coleridge, J., told the jury that an intention to injure merely, would not bring a case within the Act, nothing short of an intent to leave the house no house at all in fact; if they intended to leave it still a house, however dilapidated, they were not guilty; the jury accordingly acquitted them. R. v. Adams et al., Car. & M. 299. So, where a mob attacked a man against whom they had some animosity, and he escaped into a public-house, which was immediately closed against the mob; the mob insisted on the man being given up to them, saying that otherwise they would pull the house down; and the man not being given up, they attacked the house with sticks and stones, beat in the door and lower windows, and entered the house; but not finding the man there, and hearing that the mayor was coming, they went away: Tindal, C. J., held that this was not a beginning to demolish, within the meaning of this Act, the intention of the mob being evidently not to destroy the house, but to get the man into their power. R. v. Price et al., 5 Car. & P. 510. But where, in such a case, the mob remained after the obnoxious individual had escaped, and continued to attack the house, until the police interfered and compelled them to desist: Gurney, B., left it to the jury to say whether they had not the intention to demolish the house, as well as to injure the person whom they sought; and the jury being of that opinion, found the prisoners guilty. R. v.

Batt et al., 6 Car. & P. 329. Where, however, a man demolished a cottage which he believed to be his own, and he was assisted in it by others, and it was done in a riotous way: this was holden by Patteson, J., not to be a case within the meaning of the statute. R. v. Langford et al., Car. & M.

602.

It is necessary to remark, that destroying a house by fire, if done by several, in a riotous way, is a demolition of it within the meaning of this statute, and the offenders may be indicted accordingly it is not necessary they should be prosecuted for arson. R. v. Harris et al., Car. & M. 661. R. v. Christian et al., 12 Law J. 26 m.

3. That the prisoners were either active in pulling down the house, or present and forming a part of the riotous assembly. And where the house was destroyed by fire, it was holden that a person present and aiding whilst it was burning, but not when it was first set fire to, might be convicted. Simpson et al., Car. & M. 669.

Destroying a Dwelling-house by Gunpowder, &c.

to wit.

Indictment.

R. v.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord -, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously, did put and place a large quantity, to wit, pounds weight of gunpowder [“ gunpowder or other explosive substance"] near unto [or state where] the dwelling-house of C. D., situate in the parish of - in the county of and did then unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously, cause the said gunpowder to explode, and by the said explosion of the said gunpowder, he the said A. B. did then unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously destroy, throw down, and damage, the said dwelling-house [or a part of the said dwelling-house, to wit, the of the same], the said C. D. being in the said dwelling-house at the time the said A. B. so committed the said offence, as aforesaid: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [There is a similar offence created by the second section of the same statute, an indictment for which can readily be framed from the above form. The offences created by the fourth section, have been already treated of, ante, pp. 278–281.

Felony; 8 & 9 Vict. c. 25, s. 1; transportation for life, or not less than fifteen years;—or imprisonment [with or with

out hard labour, Id. s. 11] for not more than three years; Id. s. 5; and if a male, under eighteen, he may be publicly or privately whipped not more than three times. Id. s. 9. Accessories before the fact, punishable in the same manner; accessories after the fact, by imprisonment, &c., for not more than two years. Id. s. 10.

This offence is not triable at any sessions of the peace. Id. s. 15.

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment the prosecutor must prove

1. That the defendant placed the gunpowder or other explosive substance in the situation mentioned in the indictment. This may either be proved by direct evidence, or presumed from the nature of the explosion, the traces appearing after it, showing where and how the explosive substance was placed; and the defendant's having placed it there, made out by evidence as in other cases. It is necessary however to state, that the statute makes no mention of putting or placing the gunpowder; it is stated in the indictment merely for the purpose of describing the offence with greater certainty. So that if the prosecutor should fail in the proof of it, it will not be material, but that part of the statement may be rejected as surplusage.

2. The explosion and effect of it. That the defendant caused the gunpowder to explode, may fairly be inferred from his having placed the gunpowder in the place mentioned; or his having placed it there, may be inferred from the fact of his exploding it, if that be proved.

If the explosion did not in fact take place, but the explosive substance were merely placed or thrown near the building, with intent to destroy or damage it, the statute makes that a substantive felony, punishable with transportation for not more than fifteen years, or imprisonment not exceeding two years. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 25, s. 6.

3. That the house injured, was a dwelling-house, as in burglary, ante, p. 333; that it was the dwelling-house of C. D.; see ante, p. 336; and situated as described in the indictment. See ante, p. 339.

4. That C. D. was in the dwelling-house at the time, as ante, p. 490,