and render useless, to wit, at the parish aforesaid, in the Manufactures. county aforesaid,] against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the 7 & 8 G.4,c. 30. King, his crown and dignity. Evidence. In this case it must be proved that the offence of breaking or cutting, or destroying, was done by the prisoner. The quantity of the goods injured, and the value, are immaterial; and the wilful intention will, in most cases, be apparent by the unauthorised conduct of the prisoner in damaging the property without any sufficient cause. We have just seen, that by the 25th section of the statute, malice against the owner is not essential to any offence under the Act, and, consequently, it need not be proved. The guilt of the prisoner being shown, it remains to prove, that the goods damaged were the property of B., and that they were in the loom, as stated in the indictment. Indictment for damaging Warps of Silk, Woollen, &c. Nottinghamshire, The jurors for our lord the King upon to wit. their oath present, that A., late of the parish of in the county of labourer, on, &c. with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid,* in the county aforesaid, certain [describe the goods damaged] of the value of £, the goods and chattels of one B., then and there being, did feloniously, unlawfully and maliciously, and against the consent of the said B., the owner thereof, cut, break and destroy, or, [did feloniously, &c. damage, with intent the same feloniously, &c. to destroy and render useless] to wit, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, against the form of the statute, &c. and against the peace of our said lord the King, his crown and dignity. Evidence. Prove the destruction of the property, or other damage, as charged in the indictment, and that the prisoner was the author thereof. You must also show the ownership of the damaged property. * Material. Manufactures. 7 & 8 G.4.c.30. Indictment for entering a House or other Building by Force, with intent to damage Silk or other Goods. Nottinghamshire, The jurors for our lord the King upon to wit. Stheir oath present, that A. late of the parish of - in the county of labourer, on, &c. with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid,* in the county aforesaid, the dwelling-house [or, shop, &c.] of one B. there situate, then and there feloniously and by force did enter, with intent then and there feloniously, unlawfully and maliciously to cut, break and destroy, [or, damage with intent to destroy and render useless,] a large quantity, to wit, yards of [the goods] [woollen serge,] then and there being in a certain room for the making thereof, belonging to the said B. in the said dwelling house then and there being, against the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the King, his crown and dignity. Evidence. Here the proofs required seem to be : 1st. The entering of the prisoner. 2d. Proof of the felonious intent, whatever it might have been. 3d. The ownership or occupation of the house, and a property in the goods. Manufactures; 7 & 8 G.4, c.29. Stealing certain MANUFACTURES; LARCENY. The 22 Car. 2, c. 5; 51 Geo. 3, c. 41; 4 Geo. 4, c. 53, repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27. LARCENY ACT. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29. Sect. XVI. And be it enacted, That i any person shall goods in process steal, to the value of ten shillings, any goods or article of of manufacture. silk, woollen, linen or cotton, or of any one or more of those materials mixed with each other, or mixed with any other material, whilst laid, placed or exposed, during any stage, process * Material. or progress of manufacture, in any building, field or other Manufactures; place every such offender, being convicted thereof, shall be Larceny. liable to any of the punishments which the court may award as herein before last mentioned. 7 & 8 G.4, c.29. Note. That is to say, transportation for life, or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years, with public or private whipping, at the discretion of the court. The general way of describing the building seems to avoid the difficulty which arose in R. v. Dixon, Russ. & Ry 53, under the old statute of Geo. 2. That Act spoke of a building made use of by calico printers, &c. and it was held, consequently, that proof of the application of the building to such use as necessary. Indictment for Stealing Goods in Process of Manufacture. Nottinghamshire, The jurors for our lord the King upon to wit. their oath present, that A., late of the in the county of - labourer, on, &c. with * parish of Second Count: Omitting the particular process of manufacture. Evidence. that the pro. In support of this indictment it must appear, perty stated belonged to B., and that its value was fully ten shillings, and that it was taken from the building or field men They must have been of the value of ten shillings, according to the Act. Larceny. Manufactures; tioned in the indictment. You must also show, that the goods were in the process of manufacture; and it must of course appear that the prisoner committed the larceny charged upon 7 & 8 G.4, c.29. him. There may be a conviction for simple larceny upon failure of the proofs as to the value, the place, and the state of the goods taken. Mines. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29. Stealing from certain mines. 7 & 8 G.4, c. 30. Setting fire to a coal-mine. Drowning any mine, or filling up any shaft, &c. with intent to destroy the mine. MINES. The 10 Geo. 2, c. 32, as to mines; 13 Geo. 2, c. 21; 25 Geo. 2, c. 10; 9 Geo. 3, c. 29; 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 77, s. 1 & 5; 56 Geo. 3, c. 125, repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27. LARCENY ACT. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29. Sect. XXXVII. And be it enacted, That if any person shall steal, or sever with intent to steal, the ore of any metal, or any lapis calaminaris, manganese or mundick, or any wad, black cawke or black lead, or any coal or cannel coal, from any mine, bed or vein thereof respectively, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as in the case of simple larceny. MALICIOUS INJURIES ACT. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30. Sect. V. And be it enacted, That if any person shall unlawfully and maliciously set fire to any mine of coal or cannel coal, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon. Sect. VI. And be it enacted, That if any person shall unlawfully and maliciously cause any water to be conveyed into any mine, or into any subterraneous passage communicating therewith, with intent thereby to destroy or damage such mine, or to hinder or delay the working thereof, or shall, with the like intent, unlawfully and maliciously pull down, fill up or obstruct any airway, waterway, drain, pit, level or shaft of or 2 belonging to any mine, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the Mines. discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for 7 & 8 G.4, c. 30. in addition to such imprisonment: Provided always, that this Proviso. Sect. VII. And be it enacted, That if any person shall un- Destroying any lawfully and maliciously pull down or destroy, or damage with engine, erection, &c. used in any intent to destroy or to render useless, any steam engine or ther engine for sinking, draining or working any mine, or any staith, building or erection used in conducting the business of any mine, or any bridge, waggonway or trunk for conveying minerals from any mine, whether such engine, staith, building, erection, bridge, waggonway or trunk be completed or in an unfinished state, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to any of the punishments which the court may award, as hereinbefore last mentioned. Note. These enactments are the same with those repealed, except that the drowning of a mine is made felony, instead of being punished by treble damages in an action. Sir Edward East, in his Pleas of the Crown, considers the reason for so broad a distinction between offences done by means of fire and those done by water, to be because the one is in its nature more destructive, and the damage more extensive and irreparable. It is, however, very fair to conclude, that as the legislature regards the incendiary with peculiar dislike, the most severe infliction of the law has not been deemed too heavy upon so outrageous an occasion as the burning of a colliery. Indictment for Larceny in a Mine. Cornwall, The jurors for our lord the King upon their mine. |