APPENDIX. 1 P. 19. The st. 57 G. 3. c. 53. enacts, that from and after the passing of this act, all murders and manslaughters committed, or that shall be committed on land, at the said settlement in the Bay of Honduras, by any person or persons residing or being within the said settlement, and all murders and manslaughters committed or that shall be committed in the said islands of New Zealand and Otaheite, or within any other islands, countries, or places not within his majesty's dominions, nor subject to any European state or power, nor within the territory of the United States of America, by the master or crew of any British ship or vessel, or any of them, or by any person sailing in or belonging thereto, or that shall have sailed in, or belonged to, and have quitted any British ship or vessel to live in any of the said islands, countries, or places, or either of them, or that shall be there living, shall and may be tried, adjudged, and punished in any of his majesty's islands, plantations, colonies, dominions, forts, or factories, under or by virtue of the king's commission or commissions, which shall have been or which shall hereafter be issued under and by virtue and in pursuance of the powers and authorities of an act passed in the 46th year of his present majesty, intituled, An Act for the more speedy trial of offences committed in distant parts upon the sea, in the same manner as if such offence or offences had been committed on the high seas. P. 33. A joint indictment lies against two for the personating of a seaman. R. v. Pott and Kent, Lent Assizes, 1818. Cor. Wood, B. and afterwards by the judges; so for a rape. P. 47. R. v. Leeman, York Summer Assizes, 1821, the jury threw out a bill of indictment for manslaughter, and Holroyd, J. quashed the coroner's inquisition, charging the prisoner with manslaughter, because the addition was after the alias dictus, and he held that inquisitions were within the statute of additions, see Cro. Jac. 341, 1 & 2 Phill, and Mary, c. 13, which speaks of an indictment by inquisition. P. 50. An addition after the alias dictus is insufficient, &c. The objection appearing on the face of the indictment may be taken by motion without plea, R. v. Ward, York Sp. Ass. 1820, cor. Parke, J. with the concurrence of Bayley, J. and see the last preceding note. P. 64. In a declaration for a nuisance if no place be mentioned the county in the margin will be intended. Warren v. Webble, 1 Taunt. 379; otherwise in an indictment, 1 Buls. 205. P. 101. An accurate copy. Although the indictment itself contains mistakes. Clinch's case, East's P. C. 938, 953. P. 105. In Lovell's case, East's P. C. 990. Leach. 282, the indictment alleged is purporting to be directed to Messrs. Drummond and Co., Charing Cross, by the name of Mr. Drummond, and the indictment was held to be good, but it does not appear that the objection was taken. P. 163. R. v. Silcot, 3 Mod. 280, where a conviction for keeping a gun without a qualification (against the st. 33 H. 8. c. 6.) was quashed, because it merely alleged "non habuisset 1001. per ann," without saying when. P. 167. An indictment against an inn-keeper for not receiving a sick person, must allege that he was a traveller. 12 Mod. 1055. P. 181, note (p). For the reference R. v. Dobbs, East's P. C. 513, read R. v. Knight and Koffey, East's P. C. 510, and add, that an averment of a burglarious breaking with intent to steal a gelding is not proved by evidence of a breaking, &c. with intent to maim a gelding. R. v. Dobbs, East's P. C. 513. P. 197. A certain quantity, to wit, 15 bushels of, &c. held to be sufficiently certain. R. v. Arnold, 5 T. R. 353. P. 201. The st. 1 G. 4. c. 102, after reciting that by the st. 56 G. 3. c. 73, it is enacted, that it shall and may be lawful, and shall be deemed sufficient to all intents and purposes whatsoever, for the conviction of any offender or offenders charged in any indictment with grand or petty larceny, for or on account of stealing any minerals, or any timber, iron, or other materials used in or for the working of mines, being the personal property of any company or adventurers carrying on the same, to allege and aver that the minerals, timber, iron, or other materials so stolen, are the property of some one or more of the partners or adventurers in such mining concern, and others his or their partners or adventurers, without naming such other partners or adventurers. And whereas the said enactment has been found to facilitate the conviction of offenders, and to promote the due administration of justice, without depriving persons accused of any fair means of defence. Be it therefore enacted by the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act, the provisions of the said act, with respect to offenders charged as in the said act is mentioned, shall be deemed and taken to extend to all cases of offenders charged in any indictment with burglary, felony, grand or petty larceny, or criminal breach of trust, committed on the goods, chattels, or personal property, of what nature soever, of any partners whatsoever, in as ample a manner as if they had been particularly specified in the said act, P. 205. See Litt. sec. 321. If there be two tenants in common of a personal chattel, and one dies, the executors shall hold and occupy with the survivor, as their testator did before he died, and see Fox v. Hanbury, Cowp. 445. 2 Comm. 399. 1 Vern. 217. P. 210. An indictment in the reign of George the Fourth alleged the offence to have been committed in the reign of George the Third, but concluded against the peace of our said lord the king. The objection being taken at sessions, the justices took the opinion of a very eminent counsel on the validity of the indictment, and. conformably with his opinion, held it to be sufficient. P. 217. Semble the mispelling of a name in setting out a record is fatal, although it be idem sonans. See Brown v. Jacobs, 2 Esp. C. 726, cor. Lord Kenyon. The court will not take notice of misrecitals of private acts of parliament, unless nul tiel record be pleaded, except as to the commencement, prorogation, &c. 1 Lev. 206. Doug. 97. 1 Ld. Ray. 318. 1 Salk. 330. P. 229, note (7). But qu. whether judgment might not be given as for a larceny at common law, although the indictment was not framed upon the statute. P. 230. An indictment against a constable for neglecting a duty prescribed by a statute need not conclude contra formam. R. v. Wyatt, Salk. 380. P. 231. An indictment charging the stealing money, goods, or bank-notes, may conclude generally against the statute, see Clarke's case, East's P. C. 600. In an indictment for stealing bank-notes from the person, it is sufficient to conclude against the statute in the singular, per Le Blanc, J. York. Sp. Ass. 1815. P. 248. One indicted as a sorter and charger of letters may be convicted as a sorter only. Shaw's case, East's P. C. 580. P. 255. A variance from the thing alleged to have been stolen, forged, &c. is usually fatal, as lion rampant for lion passant, see Lee's case, Leach. 464, supra 193. So as to names of persons, as Edward for Edmund, case cor. Chambre, at Lancaster. P. 311. See the course of proceeding, where the prisoner after a plea of not guilty withdrew his plea, and was allowed to plead to the jurisdiction. Kinlock's case, Fost. 15. P. 313. Upon a plea of peerage under letters patent, they must be produced under the great seal. R. v. Grahme, 4 St. Tr. 410. P. 343. If a defendant he charged conjunctively, where he might have been charged disjunctively, he may be convicted disjunctively. Willoughby's case, East's P. C. 581. P. 344. A person charged with an offence against one statute may be found guilty of a more general offence against another statute, East's P. C. 1021, see p. 230. P. 341. Default of a juror. Leach. 618, 706. Fost. 76. The rule is now otherwise. See P. 354. In the case of burglary the jury must find that the loco in quo was parcel of the mansion house, or that they were inclosed within the same fence, &c. Garland's case, East's P. C.. 493, where the verdict found that money had been taken up by the prisoner, which had been struck out of the hand of the prosecutor, the court would not intend that it was taken up by the prisoner in the presence of the prosecutor. R. v. Francis, 2 Str. 1815. Com. Rep. 478. R. v. P. 357. In a special verdict against a principal in the second degree, the jury must either find that he was present, aiding and abetting in terms, or that he did such acts as shew he was present, and constitute him an aider and abettor in point of law. Messenger, Appletree, and others, Kel. 77. 2 St. Tr. 591. R. v. Borthwick, Doug. 201. In the case of Royce, who was indicted under the stat. 1 G. 1. st. 2. c. 6. for feloniously beginning to demolish a dwelling-house, the jury found, "that the said John Royce was then and there present, and did then and there encourage and abet the said persons unknown, in beginning to demolish and pull down the said dwelling-house, by then and there shouting and using expressions to excite the said persons so to do, but that the said John Royce did not with force begin to de-. molish, or pull, or do any act with his own hands or person, otherwise than as aforesaid," and the court, after the matter had been argued twice, held that the verdict was sufficient, Burr. 2073. P. 359, note (b) i. e. in favour of the defendant, but the court will not grant a new trial after an acquittal, 4 Bl. Com. 361. 2 Haw. 442. R. v. Cohen and Jacob, 1 Starkie's C. 516. But in the case of an indictment for not repairing a highway, the court will, after an acquittal, stay the judgment, in order that the case may go to trial a second time on the merits. R. v. Wandsworth, 1 B. & A. 63. P. 365. In the case of R. v. Hargrove and others, York Sum. Ass. 1821. Holroyd, J. sentenced the defendants, who had been jointly convicted of a libel, to pay a joint fine. P. 449. The prosecutor is entitled to the possession of goods, although they have been sold in market overt, but only as against him who is in possession at the time of the conviction. Horwood v. Smith, 2 T. R. 720, East's P. C. 788. The st. 21 H. 8. c. 11. does not extend to goods obtained by fraud but not stolen. Parker v. Patrick, 5 T. R. 175. R. v. Devereux and others, 2 Leach, 665. East. P. C. 789. At common law the owner was entitled to retake his property, unless it had been changed by waiver, seizure by the king, or sale in market overt, East's P. C. 789. P. 450. c. 6. s. 2. As to the punishment see the st. 18 Eliz. c. 7. 5 Ann. 4 G. 1. c. 11. 19 G. 3. c. 74. 53 G. 3. c. 162. P. 453. See the st. 52 G. 3. c. 63. which makes it felony in brokers, bankers, &c. to embezzle securities deposited with them for safe custody, &c. P. 473. By the st. 54 G. 3. c. 101. if any person shall maliciously, either by force or fraud, lead, take, or carry away, or decoy, or entice away, any child under the age of ten years, with intent to deprive its parent or parents, or any other person having the lawful care or charge of such child, of the possession of such child, by concealing or detaining such child from such parent or parents, or other person or persons having the lawful care or charge of it, or with intent to steal any article of apparel or ornament, or other thing of value or use upon or about the person of such child, to whomsoever such article may belong, or shall receive and harbour with any such intent as aforesaid any such child, knowing the same to have been so, by force or fraud, led, taken, or carried, or decoyed, or enticed away as aforesaid, every such person or persons, and his, her, and their counsellors, procurers, aiders, and abettors, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall be subject and liable to all such pains, penalties, punishments, and forfeitures as by the laws now in force may be inflicted upon or incurred by persons convicted of grand larceny. P. 473. St. 48 G. 3. c. 129. s. 2. but without such force or putting in fear, &c. It is unnecessary to notice the exception in the indictment. R. v. Young, Lancaster Summer Assizes, 1814, where the indictment was similar in form to the above precedent. Where bank-notes are stolen from the person, it has been held to be sufficient to conclude, against the form of the statute, in the singular, per Le Blanc, J. P. 485. By the st. 5 Ann. c. 31. s. 5. the receiving money is not either within this statute or 3 W. & M. c. 4. s. 9. R. v. Guy, Leach, 276, 3d ed.; neither are bank-notes within the stat. R. v. Morris, ib. 525. or bills of exchange, R. v. Wilson, cor. Best, J. York Spring Assizes, 1821. P. 486. 10 G. 3. c. 48. Qu. whether a gold watch be plate within the stat. R. v. Moses, East's P. C. 754. P. 486. St. 29 G. 2. c. 30. s. 1. any lead, iron, copper, &c. The statute extends to manufactures of iron, East's P. C. 752, although in Scott's case (ib.) it was held otherwise. And from the st. 21 G. 3. c. 69. it appears that the legislature considered manufactured vessels to be included under the general denomination of the materials of which they are made, see East's P. C. 752. P. 644. Prec. 226. See Com. Dig. tit. Rescous, A. & D. 3. |