offence the defendant shall be transported for fourteen years. Id. s. 5.

There are several kinds of stores described in the above statutes, 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 41. s. 1, 2. 39 & 40 G. 3. c. 89. s. 2, and also in 9 G. 1. c. 8. s. 3, 54 G. 3. c. 60, and 55 G. 3. c. 127; and care must be taken to bring the stores mentioned in the indictment within some one of these descriptions.

By stat. 39 & 40 G. 3. c. 89. s. 1, if the stores found be in a raw or unconverted state, or be new or not more than one third worn," the defendant shall be deemed a receiver of stolen goods, and may be transported for 14 years; or (by s. 7.) the judge may sentence him to be whipt, fined, and imprisoned; a moiety of which fine (if imposed) shall go to the King, and the other moiety to the informer. An indictment on this statute may be the same as the form above mentioned, excepting that immediately after the description of the stores, you add "which said were then and there in a raw and unconverted state," 66 or were then and there new," "" or were then and there not more than one third worn.'

Evidence for the prosecution

All that is necessary, on the part of the prosecution, is, to prove that stores, such as those described in the indictment, were found in the defendant's possession. It is not necessary to give evidence to prove the negative averment, that the defendant is not a contractor, &c.; if he be, that is matter of defence, and he must prove it.

If there be any dispute as to who is to be deemed the informer, the judge or justices, before whom the defendant shall be convicted, shall examine and finally determine the matter. 9 G. 1. c. 8. s. 5.

Evidence for the defendant

If the defendant be a contractor, or a person employed by a contractor for the purpose of manufacturing, &c. the stores mentioned in the indictment, he must prove this, and it will be a good excuse for his having them in his possession. See 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 41. s. 1. 39 & 40 G. 3. c. 89. s. 3. So, he may justify his possession of them, by producing the regular certificate for the goods, under the hands of three or more of the principal officers or commissioners of the navy, ordnance, or victualling office, stating the numbers, quantities, and weights of such goods, and the reason of their coming into the defendant's hands. 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 41. s. 2. 4. 8. 39 & 40 G.3. c. 89. s. 25, 26. So, where a woman was indicted

for having naval stores, namely canvas, in her possession, and she proved that it was in common use in her family during her husband's life time, and came to her upon his death, and was constantly used by her as table linen afterwards this was holden to be a sufficient excuse, and the defendant was acquitted. Fost. 439. So, if the defendant prove that he bought the stores in question from a person who was in the habit of purchasing at the navy sales, and who he was therefor led to presume had the regular certificate, it will be a sufficie excuse. R. v. Banks, 1 Esp. 145.

CHAPTER jl.

Ofences against public justice.

SECT. 1. Escape.

2. Breach of prison.

3. Rescue.

4. Returning from transportation.

5. Perjury.

6. Bribery.

7. Extortion.

8. Misconduct of officers of justice.

9. Not obeying the orders of a magistrate.

10. Compounding felony.

11. Libels reflecting on the administration of justice.

SECT. 1.

Escape.

Indictment against a constable for a negligent escape.

Middlesex, to wit: The jurors for our lord the King upon their oath present, that on the third day of May, in the third year of the reign of our sovereign lord George the fourth, at the parish of B. in the county of M., J. S. then being one of the constables of the said parish, brought one J. N. before A. C. esquire, then and yet being one of the justices of our said lord the King, assigned to keep the peace of our said lord the King in and for the county aforesaid, and also to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses, and other misdeeds committed in the said county; and the said J. N. then and there was charged before the said A. C. by one Catherine Hope, spinster, upon the oath of the said Catherine, that he the said J. N. had then lately before violently, and against her will, feloniously

ravished and carnally known her the said Catherine; and the said J. N. was then and there examined before the said A. C., the justice aforesaid, touching the said offence so to him charged as aforesaid; upon which the said A. C. the justice aforesaid, did then and there make a certain warrant under his hand and seal, in due form of iaw, bearing date the said third day of May in the year aforesaid, directed to the keeper of Newgate or his deputy, commanding him the said keeper or his deputy, that he should receive into his custody the said J. N., brought before him and charged upon the oath of the said Catherine Hope, with the premises above specified; and the said justice by the said warrant did command the said keeper of Newgate or his deputy, to safely keep him the said J. N. there until he by due course of law should be discharged: which said warrant afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid, was delivered to the said J. S., then being one of the constables of the same parish as aforesaid, and then and there having the said J. N. in his custody for the cause aforesaid; and the said J. S. was then and there commanded by the said A. C., the justice aforesaid, to convey the said J. N., without delay, to the said gaol of Newgate, and to deliver him the said J. Ñ. to the keeper of the said gaol or his deputy, together with the warrant aforesaid. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said J. S., late of the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid, baker, afterwards, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, then being one of the constables of the said parish as aforesaid, and then having the said J. N. in his custody for the cause aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid, the said J. N., out of the custody of him the said J. S., unlawfully and negligently did permit to escape, and go at large whithersoever he would, whereby the said J. S. did then and there escape, and go at large whithersoever he would: to the great hindrance of justice, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our lord the King, his crown and dignity.

Fine. 2 Hawk. c. 19. s. 31. Where a private person is guilty of a negligent escape, the punishment is fine or imprisonment, or both. Id. c. 20. s. 6. The imprisonment must be for some criminal matter, otherwise the escape is not punishable criminally.

Evidence.

Prove that J. N. was charged with a rape, as alleged in the indictment. Prove the warrant of commitment in substance as set out in the indictment, either by producing the warrant itself, or, after proving the service of a notice upon the de

fendant to produce it, give parol or other secondary evidence of its contents. Prove a delivery of the warrant to the defendant. Prove that he had J. N. in actual custody under the warrant. See 2 Hawk. c. 19. s. 1, 4. And lastly, prove the escape. It is not necessary to prove negligence in the defendant; the law implies it: see 1 Hale, 600 but if the escape were not in fact negligent, if the defendant by force rescued himself, or were rescued by others, and the defendant made fresh suit after him, but without effect; all this must be shewn upon the part of the defendant. Also, it is immaterial whether J. N. were guilty of the rape or not, provided the warrant were such as would justify J. S. in detaining him. See ante, p. 255.

Indictment for escaping out of the custody of a constable.

You may state the charge before the magistrate, the warrant of commitment, and the defendant's being in the custody of J. S., as in the last precedent, to the *; and then proceed thus]: and the jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that the said J. N., late of the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid, labourer, so being in the custody of the said J. S., under and by virtue of the warrant aforesaid, afterwards, and whilst he continued in such custody, and before he was delivered by the said J. S. to the said keeper of Newgate, or his deputy, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid in the county aforesaid, out of the custody of the said J. S. unlawfully did escape, and go at large whithersoever he would: to the great hindrance of justice, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our lord the King, his crown and dignity.

Fine and imprisonment. See 2 Hawk. c. 17. s. 5. See the evidence under the last precedent.

Indictment against a gaoler for a voluntary escape.

Berkshire, to wit: The jurors for our lord the King upon their oath present, that heretofore, to wit, [at the general quarter sessions of the peace holden at so continuing

the record of the conviction of the party who escaped, stating it however in the past and not in the present tense; see ante, p. 52; then proceed thus]: as by the record thereof more fully and at large appears; which said judgment still remains in full force and effect, and not in the least reversed or made void. And the jurors first aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present, that afterwards, to wit, at the said general quarter sessions of the peace above mentioned, he the said J. N. was then and there committed to the care and custody of J. S., he the said J. S. then and still being keeper of the common gaol in and for the said county of Berks, there to be kept and im