"Accepted, pay able "At Sir John Lubbock, Bart. & Co.'s, with intent to defraud the said Sir John Lubbock, Bart. & Co. The bill was drawn and indorsed, as well as accepted, by the prisoner. Littledale, J., was of opinion, that the acceptance being proved to be in the handwriting of the prisoner was not in itself primá facie evidence of a forgery, sufficient to put the prisoner on his defence; but, after some discussion, in which Hardy for the prosecution contended that it was, he allowed the case to go to the jury, intimating that he should reserve the point for the opinion of the Judges, in the event of a conviction. The prisoner was acquitted. Note-See this case stated more at large, post, tit. "Forgery." Clement's Case. Prisoner was indicted for horse-stealing. CARLISLE Sp. Assizes, 1830. The Possession in Scotland evi evidence was, that he had the horse in his posses- dence of steal ing in Eng sion in Kirkcudbright, three days after it had been land. stolen, in the county of Cumberland. Parke, J., held this to be sufficient evidence of a stealing by the prisoner in Cumberland. LANCASTER Sp. Assizes, 1830. On an indict ment for uttering in June, proof Stewart's Case. Prisoner was charged with uttering forged notes. in June. The proof was, that he uttered the notes may be given in question in November. of an uttering in November. Brown, for the prisoner, objected, that the charge could not be supported by such evidence. Park, J.-"I know of no limitation as to time. The distance of time is matter for observation to the jury; but it is undoubtedly evidence." The learned Judge asked for authority to the contrary, but no one furnished it. See Millard's case, ante, p. 107, n. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. A direction given by a Jenkins and Smart's Case, Prisoners were indicted for stealing money from master to his the betting-room at Doncaster. servant, held to be evi dence, though The counsel for the prosecution asked witness if the prisoners he had given any directions to his servant on leaving were not pre sent. his house. The prisoner's counsel objected, that in the absence of the prisoner it was not evidence. Parke, J.-"I do not see why it is not." The evidence was received. Note. The directions given were "I desired the boy on no account to leave the room during my absence." Arundel's and Barker's Case. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. stolen pro A mother, her son, and a third party, were in- The fact of dicted for sheep-stealing. The only evidence perty being against the mother was, that the house in which the person's found in a house, is not carcase of the sheep was found was her house. evidence that There was other distinct evidence affecting the and the other prisoner. house with the mother. The son lived in the son that person stole it, if circumstances tend to shew same that it was stolen by other persons; but it may be receiving. Parke, J., told the jury, that there was no evi- evidence of dence to put the mother on her defence for stealing, whatever evidence there might be of receiving. Milner, counsel for the prosecution, pressed upon the learned Judge's attention, the fact of the carcase having been found in the mother's house. But, per Parke, J., "There were two other persons proved to have been concerned, and there were no female footsteps seen near the spot from which the sheep was taken, but only male footsteps, which were traced to the son and the other prisoner." Atkinson's and Others' Case. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. Evi- The conduct of a prisoner con- at a meeting held a few meet- days before, Prisoner was indicted for frame breaking. dence was offered to shew what had been the duct of one of the parties, as chairman of a ing of Barnsley weavers, held two days before transaction, on account of which, the present indictment was preferred. in reference to the the same sub ject-matter as that out of which the charge has arisen, may be given in evidence. Blackburne, for the prisoners, objected to it being received. But, Parke, J., held it to be admissible, on th ground that it was part of the whole quarrel or differ ence between the masters and their workmen. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. Shoe-marks how to be compared, in order to be made evidence. Shaw's Case. Prisoner was indicted for murder. A witness was called to prove comparison o shoes and shoe-marks. Parke, J., asked him if he had looked at the soles of the shoes, and examined them with the foot. marks before he put the shoe on the mark. The witness answered in the negative. Parke, J., desired the jury to reject the whole inquiry relating to the identification by shoe-marks. In Heaton's case, (for murder), Lancaster Spring Assizes, 1832, Alderson, J., required the clear 'est proof, that such comparison had been previously made, before he allowed the correspondence of the shoes with the marks to be given in evidence. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. In bigamy, identity must Drake's Case. On an indictment for bigamy, proof must be be ascertained given that the person who the prisoner is alleged to with certain ty. have married, was in fact such person. Elsworthy's Case. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. ment alleges that goods stole from the per were received Prisoner was indicted for receiving stolen goods, If an indictknowing them to be stolen. The indictment alleged, that he received them from the person who them; and further, that the person who stole was a certain ill-disposed person to the jurors unknown. son who stole them them, and that that per son is un known to the jurors, the prosecutor was must prove that they were the received from the actual thief. andth Parke, J., held, that on this indictment it necessary to prove that the prisoner received property from the person who actually stole it; he would not allow it to go to the jury to say, whether the person from whom he was proved to have received it was an innocent agent or not of the thief*. Note.-In Rex v. Walker, 3 Campb. 264, prisoner was indicted as an accessary before the fact to a larceny. The indictment charged, that a certain person to the jurors unknown, feloniously stole, took, and carried away six bushels of wheat, of the goods and chattels of one J. Oliver, and that the prisoners incited, procured, and hired the said person unknown, to commit the said felony. The grand jury had found the bill, on the evidence of Charles Iles, who acknowledged that he had stole the wheat, and it was now proposed to call him as a witness, to establish the guilt of the pri • The facts proved were, that the person who stole the property handed it to J. S., and that J. S. delivered it to the prisoner. |