NEWCASTLE Sp. Assizes, 1834. In an indict ment for an offence, pu nishable with transport ation for life, Glidstone's Case. Per Alderson, J.-"The Judges have held, that where the offence charged gives them power to transport for life, the former conviction is not to a former con- be introduced into the indictment; but this rule viction ought does not hold where the offence is of a compound nature, and will admit of a verdict for a common larceny *." not to be charged. the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act it shall not be lawful, on the trial of any person for any such subsequent felony, to charge the jury to inquire concerning such previous conviction until after they shall have inquired concerning such subsequent felony, and shall have found such person guilty of the same; and whenever in any indictment such previous conviction shall be stated, the reading of such statement to the jury as part of the indictment shall be deferred until after such finding as aforesaid: provided nevertheless, that if, upon the trial of any person for any such subsequent felony as aforesaid, such person shall give evidence of his or her good character, it shall be lawful for the prosecutor, in answer thereto, to give evidence of the indictment and conviction of such person for the previous felony before such verdict of guilty shall have been returned, and the jury shall inquire concerning such previous conviction for felony at the same time that they inquire concerning the subsequent felony." *In Holmes' case, L. C. C. 149, where a count for larceny, with a former conviction, was joined to a count for a GAME. Athea's Case. By the 9 Geo. 4, c. 69, s. 9, it was enacted, that "If any persons to the number of three or more together, shall, by night, unlawfully enter or be in any land, whether open or inclosed, for the purpose of taking or destroying game or rabbits, any of such persons being armed with any gun, cross-bow, fire-arms, bludgeons, or any other offensive weapon, each and every of such persons burglary, Hullock, B., made the counsel for the prosecution elect. It is to be remarked, however, that burglary was then in all cases a capital offence; and the statute expressly restricts the charging a former conviction to felonies not capital. In an indictment for burglary now, under the 3rd sect. 1 V. c. 86, s. 3. of 1st Vict. c. 86, if a larceny be included, the doctrine in the text will apply, and if the party charged be found guilty of the larceny only, the former conviction will take effect. The 11th sect. of 1 Vict. c. 86, s. 11, is as follows: "Be it enacted, that whosoever shall be convicted of the crime of burglary shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of the natural life of such offender, or for any term not less than ten years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years." shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof, before the justices of gaol delivery, or of the court of Great Sessions, of the county or place in which the offence shall be committed, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas, for any term not exceeding fourteen years nor less than seven years, or be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for any term not exceeding three years; and in Scotland any person so offending shall be liable to be punished in like manner.” The prisoner was charged under the foregoing section, with unlawfully entering upon certain inclosed lands by night, for the purpose of taking and destroying game, together with other persons, to the number of three or more, being armed with &c. The evidence was, that he and his companions were in a lane, called West-End Lane,' abutting on Wade's close; and that whilst they were standing in the lane, they spread their nets upon some twigs of the hedge, which separated the lane from the close. The question was, whether this amounted to an entry upon the land. Alderson, B.—“ I shall tell the jury, that if they are satisfied that, in effecting a common purpose by all the defendants, the nets were hung upon the twigs of the hedge in Wade's close so as to be within the field, it was an entry. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., in Pickering v. Rudd*, stated that he had once held, that, firing a gun loaded with shot into a field, was a breaking of the close, and I am of opinion, that if these defendants so placed the nets within the field, it was an entry by them allt. HIGHWAY. Regina v. The Inhabitants of Preston. YORK Sum. Assizes, 1838. road be out The defendants were charged with the non-re- If a turnpike pair of the Hull and Hedon turnpike-road, in the of repair, the East Riding of the county of York. The road was made under the authority of an act of parliament, passed in the 10 & 11 Geo. 4, and was completed in the year 1833. inhabitants are liable to be indicted, although the tolls are ap propriated by act of par liament to the repairs thereof. they must from the Under the provisions of the act, the trustees In such case were required, out of the tolls, 1st, to keep down seek relief the interest of money borrowed for the of making the road; and secondly, to apply a 3G. 4, c. 126. portion in liquidation of the debt itself. * 1 Starkie, 56; 4 Campb. 219. purpose under the In Rex. v. Meadows and Others, 7 Car. & P. 282, Alderson, B., held, that if three persons go with a common purpose and one enter, the others being in the road adjoining, helping, it is, in law, an entry by all. K There was no express provision in the act that the road was to be considered, when completed, a public road. Wightman, for the defendants, contended, that the road had not answered the purpose which was contemplated when the act was obtained. That it was not, in point of fact, a public benefit, and could not, therefore, be considered a public road. Alderson, B., (looking at the act), "The wisdom of the legislature has pronounced that such road, when completed, will be a public benefit.' The question then is, has it been completed? The evidence shews that it has been completed, and that a mail-coach has travelled upon it for a twelvemonth. If, then, the road is in a bad state of repair, the inhabitants are liable on this indictment. It was decided in R. v. Netherthong*, and R. v. Mellort, that the inhabitants are liable to repair a turnpike-road, whenever it is com * R. v. Netherthong, 2 B. & A. 179. In the former case it was † R. v. Mellor, 1 B & A. 32. said, that where a highway has been converted into a turnpike-road, and placed under the management of trustees, with power to collect tolls, to be applied to the repairs, if the way be out of repair, the parish or township (as the case may be) are the only persons who are liable to be indicted, and must seek their remedy over against the trustees, which they may have after conviction, by motion for |