The magistrates were then sitting near at hand, and continued to sit till between two and three; but the prisoner was not carried before them, because the police officer was engaged elsewhere. Between four and five, the officer, of his own authority, ordered the prisoner to Bridewell; and, between five and six, he said to the prisoner, that, in consequence of the falsehood he had told him, and the prevarications he had made, there was no doubt he had set the premises on fire; and he, therefore, asked him, if any person had been concerned with him, or induced him to do it. The prisoner said he had not done it. The police officer replied, that he could not have told so many falsehoods as he had, if he had not been concerned in it; and he again asked him if any body had induced him to do it. In speaking of the falsehoods, the police officer referred to an examination of the prisoner he had himself made. The prisoner had had no food from the time he was apprehended till after his confession. Bayley, J., thought it worthy of consideration, whether a confession, so obtained, when the detention of the prisoner was perhaps illegal, and when the conduct of the officer was calculated to intimidate, was admissible in evidence; and he reserved the point. The majority of the Judges held, that the confession was rightly received, on the ground that no threat or promise had been used*. CONSPIRACY. Maudsley's and Another's Case. Two persons were indicted for felony, in tempting to poison A.B., by administering tain poisonous ingredients, as set forth in indictment. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. at- A party ac cused of a cer- felony, and a conspiracy to the commit the At the same time, an indictment was found against them for a conspiracy to poison the same individual by the same means. On the trial of the first indictment, the prisoners were acquitted, there being no proof that the ingredients were poisonous. Parke, J., thereupon directed an acquittal for the conspiracy also, there being no other proof of a conspiracy to poison than that by which it was attempted to establish the felony, viz. that the ingredients were poisonous. same felony upon the same evidence. The majority were, Abbott, C. J.; Alexander, C. B.; Graham, B.; Park, J.; Burrough, J.; Garrow, B.; and Hullock, B. The minority, Best, C. J.; Bayley, J.; and Holroyd, J. YORK Sum. Assizes, 1822. Warrant di rected to the constable of A., and to by name. CONSTABLE. Wetherell v. Watson and Others. Where a warrant is directed generally to the constable of a particular place, and to several persons other persons by name, they are all principals, and it is in fact directed to that person who has authority to act, and the rest are in aid of him. Warrant to A. and the con Again, if a warrant be directed to A., and to the stable of B. constable of a particular place, the latter may act under it, though out of his jurisdiction; for it is to be considered as an authority to act in aid of A.— Per Abbott, C. J.* NEWCASTLE Sum. Assizes, 1823. Constable may not hear a charge. Watson v. Carr. Though a constable may be authorized to arrest nightwalkers, malefactors, and suspicious persons, he has no right to hear and determine a charge against them, he has no right even to hear it.-Per Bayley, J. Vide ante, tit. "Arrest" †. * By the stat. 5 Geo. 4, c. 18, s. 6, a constable may act in any place within the jurisdiction of the justice who directs him. (1824). As touching the authority of constables in regard to arrest, &c. in criminal cases, see Hawk. P. C. B. 2, c. 12, 13; Reg. v. Tooley, 2 Lord Raym. 1302; ante, p. 7, n. ; 3 Inst. 118; Cro. Eliz. 372; Rex v. Chapman and others, 2 Bing. 523; Beckwith v. Philby, 6 B. & C. 639; Thompson's case, 2 R. & M.C. C. 80; Curvan's case, Id. 132; Howarth's case, Id. 207; Anonymous. YORK Sum. Assizes, 1829. On an indictment for assaulting a constable, it is Constable's appointment. not necessary to shew his appointment. Vide ante, p. 14, tit. "Assault" *. CORONER'S INQUISITION. Jane Denton's Case. YORK Lent Assizes, 1823. Prisoner was charged by the coroner's inquisition Inquisition with the murder of her female bastard child. The inquisition was upon parchment, but signed and sealed by the coroner only, and not by any of the jurors. Holroyd, J., ordered it to be quashed; and said, "It occurred to me, upon looking at this inquisition, that it was not valid, not being signed and sealed by the jurors. I recollect a case at Carlisle of an inquisition being quashed for the like objection. It is stated in this case, that there was an inquisition on paper, which was signed and sealed by Woolmer's and Palmer's case, 1 Moody, 334: also Willcock's • A constable is entitled to the custody of his appointment; and in no case is a constable required by law to part with a warrant out of his possession, for that is his justification. 1 E. P. C. 319. signed by coroner only is bad. Indictment not signed by the foreman or any of the jury is good. Inquisition signed by foreman of cient. the coroner and jurors both. This shews the propriety of every inquisition being signed and sealed by the jurors, as well as the coroner; because, the one returned by the coroner may not be the same as that found by the jury. There is a material difference between an indictment and an inquisition; an indictment is delivered into court by the grand jury themselves, and therefore, though only signed by the foreman, or even though not signed at all, it is good, because there can be no doubt of its authenticity. An indictment is a bill presented to the grand jury, and the grand jury is to find whether it be a true bill or not. "In the case of an inquisition, no bill is presented to the grand jury; but the inquisition is the result of their inquiry, certified by them, and should therefore be signed and sealed by them, in order that there may be no doubt of its being the same as found by them. "There is a case in Mr. East's P. C., in which it was held to be necessary that an inquisition should be signed by the jurors. "A case was cited in manuscript (Rexv. Norfolk); Coroner and there the inquisition was signed and sealed by the Jury insuffi- coroner and the foreman of the jury.-That was held to be insufficient. In this instance, the inquisition being signed and sealed by the coroner only, my opinion is, (and I have also consulted my Brother Bayley on the subject), that it must be quashed. |