YORK Sum. Assizes, 1829. Grand jury not entitled Anonymous. Cottingham moved, that a deposition taken be to see the de- fore a magistrate on the examination of a prisoner, positions. might be laid before the grand jury, in order that a confession which he stated to be contained therein might assist them in finding a bill. Per Littledale, J.-I cannot allow it. If the grand jury want the depositions, they must come and ask for them*. The words of 2 & 3 P. & M. c. 10, are-" that such justices of the peace, before whom any person shall be brought for manslaughter or felony, or for suspicion thereof, before he or they shall commit or send such prisoner to ward, shall take the examination of such prisoner, and the information of those that bring him, of the fact and circumstances thereof, and the same, or so much thereof as shall be material to prove the felony, shall be put in writing," &c. Note-In Rex v. Scorey, 1 Leach, 43, the Court of King's Bench granted a rule to shew cause why a criminal information should not go against the coroner for refusing to hear evidence on the part of the person accused. In Denby's case, 1 Leach, 514, a witness, whose information before the magistrate had been taken in writing pursuant to the statute of Phil. & Mary, on being produced before the GRAND JURY, prevaricated in such a manner as to induce a very strong suspicion that he had been tampered with on the behalf of the prisoner. The grand jury, therefore, applied to the court for the depositions taken before the magistrate. But Gould, J., and Hotham, B., were of opinion that, as the best evidence was the vivâ voce testimony of the witness himself, they could not abandon that, and resort to the secondary kind of evidence, resulting from his written Fisher's and Jenning's Case. APPLEBY Sp. Assizes, 1829. position on Fisher's deposition was proved to have been Prisoner's detaken on oath. Hullock, B., refused to allow it to oath not adbe read*. missible. Doncaster Betting Room Case. YORK 1830. two examina regular depo at the first, The first time prisoner was before the magistrate If there be no regular depositions were taken; but some notes tions, but no of what passed were taken down by the magistrate's sitions taken clerk. The prisoner was not then committed. At a subsequent examination regular depositions were taken, and returned to the assizes, and the prisoner was then committed. Parke, J., held, that prisoner's counsel was entitled to avail himself of the notes of what passed on the first examination, because it was not a deposition regularly taken; and he handed the book containing it to Alderson, the prisoner's counsel, having first sworn the magistrate's clerk to the fact of his having taken it down on the occasion in question. deposition; and on this ground the application was refused. A similar application was refused by Gould, J., at the Exeter Assizes, 1788. See 1 Hale, P. C. 585. In Rex v. Smith, 2 Stark. Ev. 52, the depositions purporting to have been taken on oath, Le Blanc, J., refused to admit parol evidence to shew, that, at the time of prisoner's examination, he was not sworn. the prisoner is entitled to the notes of what passed at the first examination. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. Whatawitness states before Fletcher's and Squire's Case. At the examination before the magistrate, a wit his examina- ness stated afresh that which he had before stated tion may be given in evi- to some other person. The statement made to the dence by pa the same may rel, though magistrate was committed to writing: Held, that be afterwards both that which he stated in the first instance might reduced into examination. writing at his be given in evidence, and also that which he stated before the magistrate; the former by parol, and the latter by the production of the writing.-Per Parke, J.* * Harris, Evans, and Butler, were indicted for killing an ewe, the property of Thomas Bennett, with intent to steal the carcase. The three prisoners were examined before the magistrate, who, after the usual caution, took down (as he stated in his evidence at the trial) every thing they said, that he heard. That the papers produced, contained, as he believed, every thing that transpired before him; that he intended to take down all that was said to him, and he believed he did; the room was very full. (N. B. The papers in question were the depositions of Bennett, Mr. Pennell, and Jonathan Price; and the confession of the prisoner, Butler,—that he B. had been concerned with stealing the sheep of those three persons; also the examination of the prisoners, Harris and Evans, which contained an admission by them, that they had been concerned in the stealing the sheep of Mr. Pennell only.) The question was, whether, as Harris and Evans had made a confession as to Pennell's sheep, which had been taken down in writing by the magistrate, any confession, as to |