REGINA v. PHILIP GEORGE DAVIES.

A count for forging or uttering a "deed, purporting to be a lease of certain premises," described shortly, is good without setting it out verbatim.

THIS prisoner was tried before LORD DENMAN, C. J., at the Summer assizes for the county of Anglesea, in the year 1840, upon an indictment for forgery.

[*178]

The first count was abandoned by the prosecutor, and the prisoner was tried upon the second, which follows: And the jurors, &c., that the said Philip George Davies, on, &c., at, &c., feloniously did offer, utter, dispose of and put off a certain other deed, purporting to be made on the 1st day of March, in the year of our Lord 1837, between one Robert Williams of the one part, and the said David Griffith of the other part, and purporting to be an under-lease by the said Robert Williams to the said David Griffith, of certain lands, tenements, and premises therein mentioned, for a certain term therein mentioned, subject to the payment of the yearly rent of 87., payable on the 1st day of March in every year, and purporting to contain a covenant by the said David Griffith with the said Robert Williams, for the payment by the said David Griffith to the said Robert Williams of the yearly rent of 87., with intent to defraud the said George Bradley Roose; the said Philip George Davies at the time he so uttered and published the said last-mentioned deed

as aforesaid, then and there well knowing the same to be forged, 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. The offence was clearly proved, and the prisoner was found guilty. And the question for the opinion of the Judges was whether under the 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 123, s. 3, upon which the indictment is framed, the conviction could be sustained; whether the count was good.

This case was considered (a) at a meeting of all the Judges except ALDERSON, B., PATTESON, J., and ERSKINE, J., in Michaelmas term, 1840, and the Judges present were unanimously of opinion that the conviction was good: the meaning of the statute is, that the instru ment should be described as shortly as in an indictment for larceny, as if it were an indictment for larceny.(b)

(a) TOWNSEND appeared to argue the case for the prosecution, but as no counsel appeared for the prosecution, he was not heard.

(b) See R. v. Martin, 1 Moo. C. C. 483; R. v. Thomas, 2 Id. 16; R. v. Rock, Id. 66. In R. v. Sharpe, 8 C. & P. 438, PATTESON, J., says, that the Judges "thought that the words of the statute must be read in this way; that it shall be sufficient to describe the instrument in such manner as would sustain an indictment for stealing the same, supposing it to be the subject of larceny."

*REGINA v. JAMES ALLEN.

[*179]

An indictment for rape need not contain an express allegation of an
"assault."

THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice PATTESON at the Central Criminal Court, in July in the year 1840, upon an indictment, of which the following is a copy :

Central Criminal Court to Wit: The jurors for our Lady the Queen upon their oath present, that James Allen, late of the parish of Hornsey, in the county of Middlesex, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, laborer, on the 1st day of July, in the fourth year of the reign of our sovereign Lady Victoria, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, defender of the faith, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the said Court, in and upon Ellen Fitzgerald, in the peace of God and our said Lady the Queen, then and there being, violently and feloniously did make, and her the said Ellen Fitzgerald then and there against her will, violently and feloniously did ravish and carnally know, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

The learned Judge discovered the omission of the

words "an assault," after the Jury had been charged with the prisoner, and afterwards respited the judgment in order to take the opinion of the Judges whether judgment ought not to be arrested. The stat. Westm. 1, c. 13, has the words, "the King prohibiteth that none do ravish any woman against her will, and inflicts two years' imprisonment and fine."

[*180]

*The stat. Westm. 2, c. 34, has the words, "it is provided that if a man do ravish a woman where she did not consent, he shall have judgment of life and of member."

The stat. 18 Eliz. c. 7, s. 1, makes it felony, without benefit of clergy, to commit any manner of felonious rape, ravishment, or burglary. The stat. 9 G. 4, c. 31, s. 1, repeals all these statutes, and by s. 16, it is enacted, "that every person convicted of the crime of rape shall suffer death as a felon."

The offence being one at common law, and these statutes regarding the punishment only, the question is, whether the case can be said to come within 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 16, which provides, "that where the offence charged has been created by any statute or subjected to a greater degree of punishment or excluded from the benefit of clergy by any statute, the indictment shall after verdict be held sufficient to warrant the punishment prescribed by the statute, if it describe the offence in the words of the statute." The word "rapuit" is held to be essential, 1 Hale, 628 and 632, and so are the words "against her will;" there is a doubt whether

"carnaliter cognovit" be essential, but in this indictment all those three expressions occur.

The case of R. v. Pelfreyman & Randal, 2 Leach, 663, determines that the omission of " feloniously" before the words "did make an assault," is fatal to an indictment for robbery, and is the only case the learned Judge had found at all similar to the present.

The question submitted to the Judges was whether the judgment ought to be arrested.

This case was considered at the same meeting of the Judges as the last case in Michaelmas term, 1840, and the conviction was held good, all the Judges *being of opinion that an assault was included in rape, and that the allegation was unnecessary.

[*181]

REGINA v. THOMAS WHITEHEAD.

Goods of an adjudged felon, stolen from his house, in the possession and occupation of his wife, may be described in an indictment for larceny as the goods of the Queen. But the house cannot be so described without office found.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON GURNEY at the Summer assizes, in the year 1840, for the county of Kent, on an indictment charging him with feloniously breaking and entering the house of Elizabeth Andrews, and stealing several articles of wearing apparel, her property.