"In actions by attornies for their fees, the proof now insisted on has never been required*. Neither in actions for tithes, is it necessary for the incumbent to prove presentation, institution, and induction. Proof that he received the tithes, and acted as the incumbent, is sufficientt." Sp. Assizes, 1832. At the Newcastle Spring Assizes, 1832, on an NEWCASTLE indictment for perjury, it was alleged, that A. B., on an information before C. and D., two of his Majesty's justices of the peace, against E. F., committed wilful and corrupt perjury, &c. Parke, J., required no other proof of the said C. and D. being justices there, than that they were in the habit of acting as such. Eliza Toon's Case. Per Hullock, B.-Volenti non fit injuria, does in when it does not apply on an indictment for an assault with The law regards the consent in such a case as quite immaterial, not considering the child competent to form a judgment. • Bevan v. Williams, 3 T. R. 635. + Radford v. Macintosh, 3 T. R. 632; Cross v. Kaye, 6 T. R. 663. not apply. Note.-Under a count for an assault, with intent to commit a rape, a prisoner may be found guilty of a common assault*.-Per Hullock, B. And see Rex v. Dawson, 3 Stark. N. P. 62, where, on indictment for an assault, with intent to abuse and carnally know, Holroyd, J., held, that the defendant might be found guilty of the intent to abuse only. Justices may, under 9 G. 4, c. 31, s. 27, convict of common assault. * In Michaelmas Term, 1830, Kelly moved for a certiorari to quash a conviction for an assault under the act of 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 27, on the ground that the magistrates had no jurisdiction to convict where the charge was assault, with intent to commit a felony; and the charge in the particular case was, with intent to commit a nameless offence. Per Lord Tenterden, C. J.--"The conviction is for a common assault, and although the charge was for an assault with intent, &c., yet the act gave the justice a discretionary power to judge, whether the charge amounted in substance to more than a common assault." Per Parke, J.-" At all events, a certiorari could hardly be granted; for, if the magistrates had no jurisdiction, the conviction was a nullity. Rex v. Virgil, Mich. Term, 1830." The words of the statute are-" If any person shall unlawfully assault or beat any person, it shall be lawful for two justices of the peace, upon complaint of the party aggrieved, to hear and determine such offence; and the offender, upon conviction thereof before them, shall forfeit and pay such fine as shall appear to them to be correct, not exceeding, with costs, (if ordered), the sum of 51." Anonymous. APPLEBY Sum. Assizes, 1829. encouragers If several are in concert, encouraging one another, In assault, and co-operating, they are all equally guilty, though are guilty. one only committed the actual assault. Per Bayley, J. Note.-Lord Tenterden, C. J., in a recent case, told the jury, that it was immaterial whether the defendant actually laid hold of the plaintiff or not; for, if he was present and encouraged others, he was equally responsible for the consequences; and that he did so, was sufficiently proved, by his exclaiming-" Go it! go it!" ASSIGNMENT. Anonymous. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. wife; Deed of By a deed of separation between a man and his Husband and wife, it was agreed, that the husband should assign separation, to trustees, for the support of the wife, a promissory note, the amount of a legacy which he had received in her right. Parke, J., was clearly of opinion, that the promissory note in question vested by the assignment in the trustees; and that stock upon a farm, purchased with the proceeds, was their property also, not effect of. Assignment under Insol fect of. withstanding that the assignment was made for the wife's support. It was contended, on the other hand, that the promissory note vested in the trustees for a particular purpose; and that, when it had been so applied, its produce became de-vested out of them, and re-vested in the husband. But, per Parke, J. "The money was assigned for the wife's use. The trustees, in consideration thereof, undertook to indemnify the husband against the wife's future debts; when, therefore, the promissory note had been applied, the trustees became the trustees for the wife." Note.-This point arose upon an indictment for maiming cattle. The trustees had put the wife into possession of a farm, and stocked it from the proceeds of the note. See Ball's case, 2 Ryan & Moody, C. C. R. vent Act, ef- 30, where, on an indictment for arson, it was held, that a house, in part of which a man lives, and other parts of which he lets to lodgers, may be described as his house, though he has taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and executed an assignment including the house, if the assignee has not taken. possession; at least, no objection can be made, if, in the other counts, it is stated as the house of the assignee, and, in others, of the lodger, whose room was set fire to. BAIL. Swaile's Case. YORK Sum. Assizes, 1823. Prisoner was indicted for an assault, with intent A party in dicted for a He pleaded not guilty, tra- misdemeanor at York, may to commit a rape. versed, and applied to be allowed to put in bail in put in bail in London. Jones, for the Crown, contended, that bail put in in London would not answer for a prisoner indicted at York, and referred to a case which happened in Lancashire. He admitted, however, that, in that case, the King's Bench, in virtue of their general power to bail throughout England, had, after much consideration, allowed it. Holroyd, J., thought the difficulty in the case referred to arose solely from Lancashire being a county palatine, which had a Court peculiar to itself, where application might have been made, though error lay from that Court to the King's Bench. He further observed, that the Courts, both civil and criminal, in the county of Lancaster, were superior Courts. In conclusion, he said the London bail might subject the prisoner to some difficulties, but that he had no doubt they would be admitted. London. |