REG. V. NEWALL. 1852. Perjury- therein specified became and were material; that the defendant swore in the negative of those questions; and proceeding in the usual manner to affirm the truth of the propositions, negativing what the defendant had sworn. On the part of the prosecution, the magistrates' clerk was called as a witness. He produced a book containing the minutes made by him of the examination of the witnesses before the magistrates. The entry was headed "Ann Jones "Ann Jones, of," &c. "I first became acquainted," &c. "Richard Newall, the defendant, sworn, says,-I know the complainant," &c. It being admitted that there was no other evidence forthcoming of the proceedings before the justices, Huddleston, for the defendant, submitted that the original summons must be produced, or notice to produce it served on the defendant. Powell, for the prosecution, submitted that that was not necessary, and cited Reg. v. Newman (21 L. J. 75, M. C.); where, on an indictment for perjury at the Central Criminal Court, charging the prisoner with having committed the perjury on the trial of one D., on a previous indictment for a misdemeanor in the same court, it was held that the minutes and entries of the trial of D., made by the officer of the court, and produced by him on the trial of the indictment for perjury, were good evidence to prove that D. had been so tried, as alleged, and that it was not necessary to produce any record or certificate of the trial of D. In the present case, moreover, the court would take judicial notice of the statute giving justices the power to hear the complaint of the mothers of illegitimate children, and to make orders upon the putative fathers for their maintenance. WIGHTMAN, J.-The statute provides that, upon complaint by the mother, the justice shall have power to summon the putative father before him, and, upon the appearance of the person so summoned, or upon proof of the service of such summons, to hear and adjudicate upon the case. A summons is therefore necessary to give the magistrates jurisdiction; and to prove that they had jurisdiction in this case you must prove that the defendant was duly summoned, either by production of the summons or by secondary evidence after notice to the defendant to produce it. The minutes of examination in this case are no more than the minutes of a short-hand writer, and only answer the purpose of refreshing the memory of the witness. The witness, in answer to questions put to him by the learned judge, said that the magistrates made an order on the defendant. There were three original orders. One original order was deposited with the clerk of the peace, another was served on the No defendant, and the third was kept by the person serving him. Powell applied to have the trial postponed, in order that the necessary evidence might be procured; but WIGHTMAN, J. refused the application, the defendant being in charge. (To the jury:)-It is to be regretted that the ends of justice may be defeated in this case; but the evidence is deficient for want of a notice to the defendant to produce. The defendant was accordingly acquitted. REG. v. NEWALL. 1852. Perjury- OXFORD CIRCUIT. STAFFORD SPRING ASSIZES, 1852. March 12. (Before Mr. BARON PLATT.) REG. v. DEAN. (a) Rape-Evidence. Admissibility of evidence to prove statement of the prosecutrix denied by her, with reference to a former transaction affecting her chastity. The prosecutrix, on a charge of rape, having, on cross-examination, said that she had herself been charged with stealing money, and on that occasion had accounted to a police constable for the possession of the money, by stating that it was given her for not complaining of a person who had insulted her by solicitations against her chastity, but denied that she had said the money was given her for having connexion with him; Held, that the prisoner could not call the constable as a witness, to contradict the prosecutrix, by proving that she had said that the money was given her for that purpose. THE prosecutrix, who was a servant girl, was cross-examined as to a charge of stealing money made against her by a former mistress, and the statements she had made on that occasion. It (a) Reported by J. E. DAVIS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. REG. v. DEAN. 1852. RapeEvidence. appeared that her mistress had lost the sum of fifteen shillings, and, suspecting that the prosecutrix had taken it, sent for Burrowes, a police constable, who searched her box of clothes. The prosecutrix, who was present at the search, snatched up a paper packet, which, on being taken from her hand, was found to contain fifteen shillings. She was asked to account for the possession of that sum, and now gave the following version of what she said to the police officer on that occasion. "I told Burrowes that a gentleman gave me fifteen shillings for insulting me. I told him (Burrowes) that the gentleman had first offered me five shillings and then fifteen. Burrowes asked me what the money was for. I did not say it was for having connexion with me, but I said it was for not telling of the gentleman insulting me. Burrowes asked if the gentleman had not had connexion with me. I said he had not. The gentleman did not have connexion with me. He caught hold of me and said he would have connexion with me. I refused. He did nothing but ask. He offered me five shillings, because I said I would have him taken up. I found fifteen shillings in my basket the next morning. Huddleston, at the close of the case for the prosecution, and before addressing the jury, said, he wished to have the opinion of the learned judge whether he should be at liberty to call Burrowes as a witness, to contradict the prosecutrix with reference to the statement she now says she made to him, denying that she told him that the gentleman had given her the fifteen shillings for having connexion with her. There was a distinction between this case and those in which it was held that a witness could not be called to prove some specific act of prostitution denied by the prosecutrix. Here the question was as to a statement made by the prosecutrix closely affecting her general character as a chaste woman. Mr. BARON PLATT said he would consult his learned brother Mr. Justice Wightman, sitting at Nisi Prius. On his return he said, my brother Wightman thinks you cannot call the constable to contradict the statement of the prosecutrix, but with regard to her general character you may call him or any other witnesses. The prisoner was acquitted. OXFORD CIRCUIT. STAFFORD SPRING ASSIZES, 1852. March 13. (Before Mr. BARON PLATT.) REG. v. FOSTER. (a) Maliciously damaging machines-Statute 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 4—— What is a "damage" within the statute-Machine or engine-Malice -Intent to destroy or to render useless. 1. The silling beneath an engine employed in crushing puddled balls of iron, and rolling them into bars, is a part of a machine or engine within the statute 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 4, which makes it felony if any person shall unlawfully and maliciously cut, break, or destroy, or damage with intent to destroy or to render useless, any threshing machine or any machine or engine, whether fixed or moveable, prepared for or employed in any manufacture. 2. A displacement of a machine is within the same statute; therefore placing a sledge-hammer within the jaws of the squeezers of the machine, which had the effect of displacing and depressing the silling and brickwork underneath, causing a trifling injury, but not preventing the working of the machine, is a damage within the statute. 3. The intent to destroy or to render useless is a question for the jury, and may be inferred from the mere act causing the damage. 4. It is unnecessary under this statute to prove express malice, for everything wilfully done, if injurious, must be inferred to be done with malice. THE prisoner, Abraham Foster, was indicted for damaging a machine employed in manufacture, the property of Bernard Gilpin and another, on the 12th of February, 1852, at the parish of Cannock, in the county of Stafford. The first count of the indictment alleged that the prisoner on the 12th day of February, 1852, at the parish of Cannock, in the county of Stafford, a certain machine then and there being employed in a certain manufacture, to wit, in the manufacture of iron (the said machine not being employed in the manufacture of silk, woollen, linen or cotton goods, or goods of any one or more of those materials mixed with each other or mixed with any other material, or any framework knitted-piece, stocking, hose, or lace), (a) Reported by J. E. DAVIS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. REG. v. FOSTER. 1852. Maliciously damaging machinery. of the value of 2001, the property of Bernard Gilpin and another, and then and there feloniously, unlawfully and maliciously did damage, with intent then and there to destroy, the said machine, against the form of the statute, &c. In a second count, the damage was alleged to be done with intent to render the machine useless. A third count charged the prisoner with feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously damaging, with intent to destroy and render useless, a certain machine of Bernard Gilpin and another, then and there being, &c. George Brough, the engineer to Messrs. Gilpin and another, the prosecutors, who were manufacturers of iron, was examined as a witness, and stated that at half-past five o'clock on the morning of the 12th of February, he was at the door of the rolling-mill engine-house, and within sight of the puddling furnace and squeezers. He saw the prisoner, who was a workman in the employment of the prosecutors, coming down the race (an iron pathway on which the puddling balls are conveyed from the furnace to the squeezers) with a sledge-hammer, which he was drawing along with tongs towards the squeezers, the same way as if he was engaged in drawing a puddling ball. He brought the sledgehammer in this manner, and put it between the jaws of the squeezers, the engine being then in motion. There is a sort of step in the lower jaw of the squeezers between the narrow and wide part, and the practice is to hold the puddling balls with the tongs in the wider part of the squeezers against the step, until by the action of the squeezers it is partially crushed, and then to remove it into the upper or narrower part of the squeezers. By this method the strain on the engine (worked by steam power) which would result from forcing the balls at once into the angle of the squeezers is avoided. The prisoner put the hammer into the upper part of the squeezers, and the witness immediately heard a loud report, as of a blow, shaking the building. The witness called out to the prisoner, who remained near the squeezers, There, young man, you have done something now." He made no reply, but took the hammer from the squeezers with the tongs, which he continued to hold. After the report the witness examined the squeezers, but perceived no mark. He then went into the squeezer-hole and examined the carriage of the spur-wheel of the engine and the rests. They were displaced. The silling of the carriage was also displaced. These injuries would not have occurred if the sledge-hammer had not been put in. They could not have resulted from an ordinary puddling ball being placed in the squeezers. 66 On cross-examination, the witness said that the connecting rod was displaced and lifted up, but the engine was not so much displaced as to prevent the work from going on. It continued to roll puddled iron bars, which are bars that are rolled out and cut up and heated again. The engine continued to work for two days, and then the usual stopping day intervened. No part of the machinery was broken, only displaced. |