up parting with his property, though mixed with false pretences as to the prisoner's future conduct, it is sufficient. any further charge, is a chattel of value, within the meaning of 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53; and a person obtaining such a ticket by false pretences from a servant of the railway company is guilty of a misdemeanor. Reg. v. Boulton, 576. Where the false pretence is as to the status of the party at the time, or as to any collateral fact supposed to be then existing, it will equally support an indictment under the statute. Reg. v. Bates and another, 211 On an indictment for false pretences, it was. proved that the prisoner was foreman to the prosecutor, and that as such foreman it was his duty to keep an account of the work done by the men, and to obtain at the end Misdemeanor not merged in, 229 of the week a cheque from his master for the sum due to the men for wages, and pay them accordingly. On the day in question Indictment for, on a false presentation respecting the value and history of a horse which prisoner sold to prosecutor, App. xlix. FELONY. FINDING. FORGERY. he demanded and received a cheque for a Larceny by, definition of, 277, 453 Quære, whether an indictment which charges the defendant with having obtained an order for the payment of money with intent to cheat and defraud the prosecutor of part of the proceeds of the same is within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53? Reg. v. Leonard, 284 The omission of the word "knowingly," in an indictment for false pretences, is no objection in arrest of judgment; even if it would be on demurrer. An indictment for false pretences charged that J. B., on, &c., at, &c., unlawfully did falsely pretend to H. that he had caused a writ of right to be issued at the suit of M. W. (the mother of the said H.) and others for the purpose of establishing the right of the said M. W. and others to a certain estate; and then requested the said H. to advance the said J. B. some money towards carrying on the said action: by means of which said false pretences the said J. B. did then and there unlawfully obtain from the said H. the sum of 17., &c., with intent to cheat and defraud the said H. of the same. Whereas in truth and in fact the said J. B. had not and never has caused a writ of right or any other writ whatsoever to be issued at the suit of the said M. W. and others, or at the suit of the said M. W. alone; and there was then no action commenced or to be carried on, in which the said M. W. was in any way interested: Held, a good count after verdict. Semble, per Lord Denman, C. J., that it would be good upon demurrer; and that R. v. Henderson (2 Moo. C. C. 192), is wrongly decided. Reg. v. Bowen, 483 A railway ticket entitling a passenger to travel upon a railway to a certain place, without 'The cheques of a provident society having different branches were drawn in the name of the society, and signed by the chairman and three of the committee of any branch of the society. They were then countersigned by the clerk of the whole sociery. The bankers did not know the names or signatures of the chairman or committee-men, but relied upon the counter-signature of the clerk as a voucher for their authenticity. Held, that a forgery of the signatures of the chairman and three members of the committee of a branch of the society, by means of which the genuine signature of the clerk was obtained, was a forgery of a warrant or order for the paymunt of money. Reg. v. Lee, 80 Quære.-On an indictment for uttering a forged acquittance, not being an instrument of ordinary transmission from hand to hand, can similar instruments, uttered by the prisoner on other occasions, be given in evidence to prove a guilty knowledge? Reg. v. James Phillips, 88 An indictment for forging a will, charged an intent to defraud a person or persons unknown. It was proved that the prisoner was the son of the deceased, whose will was forged; and although one of the witnesses stated that he had heard a rumour that the deceased had had another son by a former marriage, of whose existence, however, he knew nothing, except by report, there was no other evidence of any former marriage, or any children of such marriage. Held, that there was not sufficient evidence of an intention to defraud any one, to support a conviction. Reg. v. Tufts and others, 160. On an indictment for forging an order for the delivery of goods, the instrument alleged to have been forged being an order on a dock company to permit the bearer to taste wines in the dock belonging to the alleged drawer: Held, that the giving out at the docks a portion of the wine for the purpose of its being tasted there by the person presenting the order was a delivery of goods within the 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10. In the ordinary course of business at the docks, the tasting order being directed to the dock company, and being signed by the merchant owning the wines, is taken to a clerk at the docks who writes his name across it, and this signature is an authority to the cooper, without which he is not justified in acting. Held, that such an instrument was an order as soon as it left the hands of the merchant properly drawn up, and that the signature of the dock clerk was not essential to give it validity as an order. Reg. v. Illidge, 552 Indictment for false pretences, 284 Indictment for obtaining a marriage licence by perjury and false personation before a surrogate, 467 Corrupt appointment to an office in the East India Company's service, 499 Indictment for obtaining money on a false representation, respecting the value and history of a horse which the prisoner sold to the prosecutor (No. 5) App. xlix Manslaughter by driver of a railway engine, indictment for, App. lvii Of allocutus, 360 Indictment under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 22, for feloniously transposing goldsmiths' marks (No. 4) App. xliv Indictment under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112, for attempting to traffic in seamen's tickets (No. Indictment under 49 Geo. 3, c. 126, for traffick1) App. xxxi ing in appointments to public offices (No. 2) App. xxxiii Indictment for libel, and a plea of justification under Lord Campbell's Act (No. 3) App. Xxxviii Indictment for maliciously damaging a warp under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 3, 295 FRAUD. Indictment for attempting to commit, 570 GAOL DELIVERY. Commission of, does not extend to prisoners in house of correction, 431 GOLDSMITHS' MARKS. Indictment for feloniously transposing, form of, App. xliv. GOODS AND CHATTELS. porter by neglect of duty in omitting to give In an indictment, definition of, 460 a signal by which accident occurred to the train, 191 GRAND JURY. Assignment of errors on a record in a con- Is the number necessarily limited to twenty viction for perjury, 208 Order for surgeon to inspect contents of stomach on part of prisoner, charged with murder by poisoning, 227 Indictment for conspiracy by workmen to dye materials belonging to strangers, with the dye of their masters, 229 Indictment for indecent exposure, 248 Indictment for perjury, 254 VOL. III. three? 433 Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, holden in and for the County of Tipperary at Clonmel, on, &c., before the Right Honourable Francis Blackburne, Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Chief Place in Ireland; the Right Honourable John Doherty, Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas in Ireland: and the Right Honourable Richard Moore, fourth Justice of Her Majesty's Court of Chief Place, in Ireland, Justices and Commissioners of our said Lady the Queen, of Oyer and Terminer, within her said County of Tipperary, nominated and appointed to inquire into, hear, and determine all, and all manner of treasons, &c., within the said County of Tipperary, and also nominated and appointed from time to time, as need should be, to deliver the gaols of our said Lady the Queen, of the said County of Tipperary, of all prisoners, &c., &c., being by virtue of a commission under letters patent of our said Lady the Queen, bearing date at Dublin, the first day of September, in the 12th year of the reign of our said Lady the Queen, to them the said Francis Blackburne, John Doherty, and Richard Moore, and others in the said letters named directed." Held, on writ of error, that the caption sufficiently disclosed authority in the justices named to hold the sessions of themselves, though the commission was stated to have been directed to them and others. Held, that to levy war against the Sovereign in Ireland is high treason in Ireland at common law, and also that the statute of 25 Edw. 3, stat. 5, c. 2, was extended to Ireland by Poyning's Act, 10 Hen. 7, c. 10. The prisoners, who were indicted in five counts for levying war against the Queen in Ireland, and in a sixth for compassing the death of Her Majesty, on being arraigned, tendered pleas alleging that a copy of the indictment and list of the witnesses and jury panel, were not delivered to them ten days before the days of trial, and that they ought not now to be called on to plead, because of such non-delivery, concluding with a verification, and praying judgment that they might not now be compelled to answer the said indictment. In fact, copies of the indictments were furnished five days before, but the lists were not delivered at all. These pleas, having been demurred to by the Attorney-General, were overruled by the court below. Held, that they were rightly overruled, and that the prisoners were not entitled to a copy of the indictment more than five days before the trial, or to a list of the witnesses or jury panel at any period. Held, that the 1st and 4th sections of the statute 57 Geo. 3, c. 6, are not extended to Ireland, and therefore that persons prosecuted in Ireland are not entitled to the benefits conferred by the statutes 7 & 8 Will. 3, and 7 Anne, c. 21, on persons accused of high treason. Held, that in high treason a prisoner is not entitled to challenge more than twenty jurors peremptorily. The record in each case averred that the prisoner was asked whether he now hath "anything to say for himself wherefore the said justices and commissioners ought not, upon the premises and verdict aforesaid, to proceed to judgment against him," without saying "judgment of death," or "judgment and execution." Held, that this was a sufficient demand notwithstanding. W. Smith O'Brien v. The Queen, 360 Overt act, 76 HIGHWAY. COSTS. If upon the trial of an indictment for the nonrepair of a highway, ordered by justices under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, s. 94, it appears that the road indicted is not the road set out in the order of justices, and the prosecution fails in consequence; the judge has no jurisdiction to certify for the costs under s. 95. Reg. v. Inhabitants of Fifehead, 59 EVIDENCE OF DEDICATION. Public user of a road for fifty years is evidence from which a jury may infer a dedication, though it may not be clear in whom the ownership of the soil is vested. Reg. v. Inhabitants of East Mark, 60 OBSTRUCTION of. Upon an indictment for obstructing a public footway, it appeared that, before the public footway existed, the defendant's ancestors had been entitled to a carriage-way over the locus in quo; but on the part of the crown it was contended that the public user, inconsistent with the assertion of the private easement, had determined it. The learned judge told the jury that no interruption by the public for less than twenty years would destroy the private right. Held, that that proposition, if presented to the jury as a rule of law or a conclusive presumption of fact, was erroneous, and a inisdirection. The period of time is only ma terial as one element from which the grantee's intention to retain or abandon his easement may be inferred; and the sufficiency or insufficiency of the period in any particular case must depend upon all the accompanying circumstances. The defendant claimed a way for horses and carriages to certain premises occupied by him, and situated on one side of the lane over which the way was claimed; and, as evidence of that right, he produced two old leases of premises situate on the opposite side of the same lane, which leases were granted by persons under whom he claimed and purported to convey with the premises a way to them down the lane for carriage and horses. No distinct act of user under these leases was proved. Held, that they were admissible in evidence for the purpose of showing that the persons under whom the defendant claimed, being owners of property on both sides of the lane, had assumed to grant a right of way as owners of the lane, or as owners of the property leased to lease with it a right of way derived from some other source; but that they were inadmissible as evidence of reputation, or for the purpose of proving the right of way claimed by the defendant. The court granted a new trial, although the verdict was for the defendant. Reg. V. Chorley, 262. HUSBAND AND WIFE. Receiving by, 425. ILLEGAL TRAINING. INDICTMENT. The prisoner was indicted under the statute 60 Geo. 3, c. 1, in several counts; first, for that he unlawfully was present and did attend a certain meeting and assembly dangerous to the peace and security of Her Majesty's liege subjects, and then and there prohibited by law, for the purpose of training and drilling in the practice of military exercises, movements and evolutions, divers persons, to wit, &c., and then and there did train and drill to the practice of military exercises, movements and evolutions the said persons, without any lawful authority from Her Majesty, or the Lieutenant, or two justices of the peace of the said county of the city of Dublin, or of any county or riding, or of any stewartry, or by commission or otherwise, for so doing. And, secondly, that "he did then and there assist in training and drilling to the practice of military exercise," &c. And, thirdly, that "he unlawfully did train and drill to the practice of military exercises, &c., the said persons being then and there assembled, without any lawful authority from Her Majesty, or the Lieutenant, or two justices of the peace of the county of the city of Dublin, or of any county or riding, or of any stewartry, by commission or otherwise, for so doing. Held, that all the counts of the indictment were erroneous: first, by reason of there being no averments in any of them that the meeting and assembly therein mentioned was a meeting of persons for the purpose of training and drilling themselves, or of being trained and drilled to the use of arms or for the purpose of practising military exercises, movements, or evolutions; and, secondly, there being no averment that the meeting in the indictment mentioned was a meeting held without any lawful authority from Her Majesty, or the Lieutenant, or two justices of the peace, &c., by commission or otherwise. Gogarty v. The Queen, 306. INDECENT EXPOSURE. An indictment for a nuisance at common law charged that the defendant, at, &c., in, &c., did expose and exhibit his private parts, naked and uncovered, in the presence of M. A., the wife of C., and of divers others of the liege subjects, &c. The evidence was, that the defendant took out and exposed his private parts to M. A., and thereupon she directly ran off and told her husband; that there was no one in sight but herself when she saw his private parts exposed. The defendant was convicted. the Held, that as the exposure to one person only was not an offence at common law, words of "divers others of the liege subjects," &c., were material to be proved; and that, as they had not been proved, the conviction ought to be quashed. Semble, this court has authority, and is bound to examine the validity of an indictment, though no question is reserved thereon, and to quash the indictment if it is bad. Reg. v. Webb, 183. An indictment charged two defendants with indecent exposure of their persons in an open and public place. Held, that an urinal with boxes or divisions for the convenience of the public, and situated in an open market, was not a public place within the meaning of the allegation. An indictment alleged that A. "in a certain | In open and public place did lay his hands on the person and private parts of B. with intent to stir up in his own and B.'s mind unnatural and sodomitical desires and inclinations, and to incite B. to the committing and perpetrating with A. divers unnatural and sodomitical acts, and that B. in the said open and public place, did permit and suffer the said A. to lay his hands, &c., with the like intent." Held, bad, as not stating any offence with legal certainty. Reg, v. Orchard and another, 248. INDICTMENT. The prisoner was indicted in one set of counts for feloniously compassing, &c. to deprive and depose our Lady the Queen from the style, honour, and royal name of the Imperial crown of the United Kingdom, and, on certain days in the indictment named, feloniously expressing said compassings by feloniously publishing certain printings in a certain public newspaper, of which he was then and there the proprietor; and, in another set of counts, with feloniously compassing to levy war against the Queen, in order, by force and constraint, to compel Her Majesty to change her measures and counsels, and which feloniously expressing such last-mentioned compassings by feloniously publishing the same printings, and on the same days and in the same public newspaper as in the first set of counts mentioned. Held, that the two felonies, though distinct, were properly joined in the indictment. And, semble, that the question in such cases is not whether the felonies charged are distinct-but whether they are repugnant or so dissimilar in their nature and circumstances as, if joined, to be likely to embarrass the prisoner in his defence. The Queen v. J. Mitchell, 1. By the record of conviction in Q. B. upon an indictment for a common assault, it appeared that the indictment commenced thus: "the jurors of our Lady the Queen;" but the caption was in the usual form, stating them to be jurors "for our Lady the Queen." Error being assigned upon this ground: Held, that the objection was not well founded. The indictment, as set out, charged the commission of the offence "in the 10th year of our Sovereign Lady Victoria," &c., not saying of the reign:" Held, that the objection, if otherwise valid, was cured by stat. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 20. Broome v. Reg., 49. an indictment for maliciously shooting. under stat. 1 Vict. c. 84, s. 4, it is sufficient to say "with a certain loaded gun," without going on to state with what it was loaded. Reg. v. Cox, 58. In an indictment for the murder of "William Scarborough," it appeared that the deceased was the infant illegitimate son of the prisoner, Sarah Scarborough; that he was sometimes called "William" and "Coley," and was spoken of as "Sarah Scarborough's child,' and on one or two occasions as "William Scarborough," in his mother's presence, and there was no proof that he had been baptised. Held, that there was evidence to go to the jury, that the deceased had acquired the name of "William Scarborough by reputation. Reg. v. Sarah Scarborough, 72. The caption of an indictment stated that at an adjournment of a commissiou of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery, holden in and for the county of the city of Dublin, at the Sessions House, Green-street, in the said county of the city of Dublin, on Tuesday, the 8th day of August, 1848, and in the 12th year of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, before the Right Honourable Jeremiah Dunne, Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin; the Right Honourable David Richard Pigot, Chief Baron of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer; and the Honourable Richard Pennefather, one of the Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer; and others their fellows. Justices and Commissioners of our said Lady the Queen, in and for the whole county of the said city of Dublin, assigned by letters patent, &c., directed to S. W., &c., &c., to inquire, examine, discuss, and determine, by the oath of good and lawful men of the county of the city of Dublin aforesaid, and by other ways and means, &c., of all treasons, suspicions of treasons, &c., &c., by any person or persons within the county aforesaid, done, committed, perpetrated, or hereafter to be done, &c., and to deliver the gaol of Newgate, and all other the gaols in the county of the city, of all malefactors and prisoners from time to time, and to hear and determine all and singular the premises-it was presented upon the oath of good and lawful men of the body of the said county of Dublin, whose names here follow—(setting out the names of twenty-three grand jurors) -in manner and form following: Held, that this caption was not erroneous, and that it appeared from it with sufficient certainty when, where, and before whom the oath was administered to the grand jury, |