Maudsley's and Another's Case. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1830. de- Defendant unable to at poi- tend from Alexander proposed to give in evidence the position, on oath, of a woman who had been soned, and who was too ill in consequence to attend at the trial to give evidence in person. Parke, J., said it was a doubtful case. It however appeared afterwards, that the prisoners were not present, and the matter dropped*. Bennett's sheep, could be supplied by parol evidence; and whether, as the magistrate had taken down in writing every thing he heard, and he intended to take down all that was said to him, and he believed he did, parol evidence could be given of any thing else that was addressed to the magistrate. Littledale, J., reserved the point; and the Judges were of opinion, that the evidence, being prec and distinct, was properly received, and that the conviction was right. 1 Moody, C. C. 338. In Lord Morley's case, Kelynge's Reports, p. 55, is the following "It was resolved by us all, that in case any of the witnesses which were examined before the coroner were dead, or unable to travel, and oath made thereof, that then the examination of such witnesses so dead, or unable to travel, might be read. The coroner first making oath, that such examinations are the same which he took upon oath, without any addition or alteration whatsoever. "That if a witness be detained by means or procurement of the prisoner, then the examination may be used. But, if a witness, who was examined by the cotoner, is E illness. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1831. Deposition signed by pri magistrate is sufficient. Note. In a recent case at Chester, Bolland, B., on a trial for murder, admitted in evidence a deposition taken before the coroner, the witness having died in the mean time. He said he could see no distinction between a coroner and a magistrate in that respect.-Rex v. Somerville. Sidney Priestley's Case. The examination produced purported to be the soner and by examination of the prisoner. It was signed by the magistrate and also by the prisoner; but there was no proof, either that it was taken from the prisoner's mouth, or that he deposed to the facts which were contained in it. Parke, J., was of opinion that the proof of the two handwritings was sufficient, and he allowed the examination to be read in evidence against the prisoner. DISCHARGE FROM CUSTODY. YORK Sum Assizes, 1828. Discharge of Hutchinson's Case. Prisoner was indicted for horse-stealing, and ac absent, and oath is made that they have used all their endeavours to find him, and cannot find him, that is not sufficient to authorize the reading of such examination." quitted. Whereupon his counsel applied that might be discharged from custody forthwith. he prisoner who is acquitted before grand jury is dis Hullock, B.-" I do not think I have any right to charged. discharge a prisoner, though acquitted, until the grand jury are discharged; though, if I had, this is a very proper case for it." Sp. Assizes, 1829. Note.-At the following assizes, Bayley, J., dis- LANCASTER charged a person acquitted of manslaughter before the grand jury was discharged; and in several instances, either from inadvertence, or because they differed from the view taken by Hullock, B., learned Judges have allowed prisoners to be discharged immediately on their acquittal, without any reference to the fact of the grand jury having been discharged or not. DRUNKENNESS. John Burrow's Case. YORK Sum. Assizes, 1823. Prisoner, being indicted for a rape, urged that he Drunkenness was in liquor. Holroyd, J., addressed the jury as follows:"It is a maxim of law, that, if a man gets himself intoxicated, he is liable to the consequences, and is not excusable on account of any crime he may commit when infuriated by liquor, provided he was previously in a fit state of reason to know right from no excuse for crime, unless, &c. wrong. If, indeed, the infuriated state at which he arrives should continue, and become a lasting malady, then he is not amenable." CARLISLE Sp. Assizes, 1825. Drunkenness no excuse for William Rennie's Case. Prisoner was indicted for burglary, and urged crime, unless, in mitigation that he was drunk. &c. Holroyd, J., to the jury.-" Drunkenness is not insanity, nor does it answer to what is termed an unsound mind, unless the derangement which it causes becomes fixed and continued, by the drunkenness being habitual, and thereby rendering the party incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong." LANCASTER Sum. Assizes, 1830. Drunkenness may be taken Marshall's Case. On an indictment for stabbing, under the statute, into consider. Park, J., told the jury, that they might take into ation to de apprehension prisoner act termine the their consideration, among other circumstances, the under which fact of the prisoner being drunk at the time, in order to determine whether he acted under a boná fide apprehension that his person or property was about to be attacked. ed. Note.-In Goodier's case, York Summer Assizes, 1831, Parke, J., directed the jury to the same effect. DWELLING-HOUSE. Hamilton's Case. YORK Sp. Assizes, 1829. Prisoner was indicted for breaking and entering what not a a dwelling-house in June. In evidence, it appeared, that the house had not been slept in since the Christmas preceding. Littledale, J., held, that it was not a dwelling house*. dwellinghouse. DYING DECLARATIONS. YORK Craven's Case. Sp. Assizes, 1826. A person, who had been confined to his bed for "I am afraid I shall never admitted as a ation. weeks, said to the surgeon, "I am afraid, doctor, I get better"never shall get better," and shortly afterwards died. dying declarHullock, B., held, that an account given by the deceased to the doctor after this declaration, was receivable in evidence as a dying declaration, although several weeks before his death. Maude, counsel for the prisoner, objected. Hullock, B.-"I will hear you, Mr. Maude, if you please; but this subject has been lately before the Judges, and my mind is made up about it. See the cases collected under tit. 66 p. 26, et seq. Burglary," ante, |