ADDENDA. The following Cases have been decided, since this work was Page printed. 3.-If A., by letter, desire B., an innocent agent, to write the name of J. S. to a receipt on a post-office order, and B. believing that J. S. has given authority to do so, sign the receipt in the name of J. S.:-A. may be indicted for the forgery, as principal. R. v. Clifford, 2 Car. & K. 202. 12. In a commitment for an offence committed at sea, it is sufficient to state that it was committed "on the high seas," without also stating that it was committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. See R. v. Jones and Macdonell, 2 Car. & K. 165. 12. As to trial for murder on the high seas, see R. v. Serva et al., 2 Car. & K. 53. 75.-Where a statute giving an appeal, required notice of appeal to be given seven days "at least" before the sessions, and notice was given on the 31st December, at halfpast nine in the morning, and the sessions commenced on the 7th January, at ten o'clock, at which time the appeal was entered it was holden that the notice was one day too late, as it should have been served seven days, exclusive of the day of service, and of the first day of the sessions; and that the court could not take notice of the fraction of a day. R. v. JJ. of Middlesex, 14 Law J., 139, m. 144.-Where a man was indicted for robbery with violence, and the prosecutor did not attend at the trial, so that the robbery could not be proved, but a witness who was present proved the violence: it was holden that the prisoner, though acquitted of the robbery, might be found guilty of the assault, by stat. 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 11, as that statute applies to all cases where the indictment charges a felony, including an assault, and the jury negative the felony, and find the party guilty of the assault. R. v. Birch and Hardy, 2 Car. & K. 193. Page 149.-Boiling water is a "destructive matter," within stat. 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 5; and, therefore, where a woman poured boiling water over the face and into the ear of her husband, whilst he was asleep, which caused temporary blindness, and on one side permanent deafness: it was holden that she might be convicted upon that statute. R. v. Crawford, 2 Car. & K. 129. 176. 183.-Where, upon an application at petty sessions for an order in bastardy, it was objected that a prior order had been made upon the same complaint, but no evidence was given of it; and the justices refused to entertain the application, unless the mother would prove that the former order had been quashed for a defect in form: the court held that the justices had no right to assume that a former order had been made, and they accordingly granted a mandamus, commanding the justices to hear the complaint. R. v. Bridgman et al., 15 Law J. 44, m. 201.-Where a bastardy order bore date on the 24th, but was not in fact signed by the justices until the 27th, it was holden that service of a notice of appeal against the order within 24 hours after the time of signing the notice was sufficient, and that the appellant was not prevented by the date of the order from giving evidence of the time it was actually signed. R. v. JJ. of Flintshire, 15 Law J. 50, m. 201.-Where an order of bastardy was made on Saturday the 14th of March, and the putative father, intending to appeal, then entered into the necessary recognizance, but did not send notice thereof to the mother until the 19th, when the woman could not be found, nor was she actually served until the 31st.: Coleridge, J. held this to be too late, as the statute requires the notice to be given forthwith. Ex p. Lowe, 15 Law J. 99, m. 201. It is not necessary that notice of appeal against a bastardy order should be served personally upon the mother; if left for her at her usual place of residence, it is sufficient. R. v. JJ. of Cheshire, 15 Law J. 115, m. 252.-An order of justices out of sessions may be removed by certiorari, for the purpose of having it quashed, although an appeal lies against it, and the party has not appealed. R. v. Blathwayt et al., 15 Law J. 48, m. 252. And the rule that a certiorari to remove an order of justices, ought not to issue, until the time for appealing against it has expired, applies only where the certiorari is prayed for by the party in whose favour the order is made. R. v. Willatts et al., 14 Law J. 157, m. Page 288.-If on examination before a magistrate, a party in whose possession stolen property is found, give a reasonable account how he came by it, and refer to some known person as the person from whom he received it, it is the duty of the magistrate to have that person before him, that he may confirm or contradict the account given by the accused. Per Ld. Denman, C. J., in R. v. Henry Smith, 2 Car. & K. 207. 292.-Where a wife was apprehended for felony, and her husband in the presence of the constable held out an inducement to her to confess, and she accordingly made a confession: Pollock, C. B. held that this could not be received in evidence. R. v. Laugher, 2 Car. & K. 225. 295. In a case of felony, it is not necessary that the committing magistrate should bind over all the witnesses examined before him in the case, to give evidence, it is sufficient that he bind over those whose evidence is material; but it is desirable that all the evidence given should be transmitted to the judge. Per Ld. Denman, C.J., in R. v. Henry Smith, 2 Car. & K. 207. 318.-Fees paid by a superintendent constable to the clerk to the magistrates, upon the conviction of vagrants, are expenses within stat. 18 G. 3, c. 19, s. 4, for which he ought to be allowed. R. v. Overseers of Chelmsford, 5 Q. B. 66. 369.-A summary conviction which states evidence to have been given, must show that it was given in the presence of the party charged; and the same rule applies to warrants of commitment which operate in themselves as convictions. R. v. Tordoft, 5 Q. B. 933. 376.-Where the warrant of commitment upon a conviction, under which the defendant was committed, recited a bad conviction, but in a week afterwards another warrant against him for the same offence, reciting a good conviction, was lodged with the gaoler: the court held that he was not entitled to be discharged. R. v. Richards et al., 5 Q. B. 926. 423. As to an action for the 10., which overseers of the poor are bound to pay to each of the two inhabitants complaining of a disorderly house, and requiring the keeper to be prosecuted, see Burgess v. Boetejeur et al., 7 Man. & Gr. 481. 434.-Embezzlement: A. was appointed assistant overseer of the poor by a board of guardians, for a district of which the township of F. formed a part; and his duty was to assist the overseers of all the townships in the district; Page he received money for rates from some of the ratepayers in F., and embezzled it: it was holden by the judges that he could not be convicted; supposing the money to belong to the overseers of F., he was not their servant; and supposing him to be the servant of the guardians, it was not their money which he embezzled. R. v. Townsend, 2 Car. & K. 168. 450.-If a child be too young to be sworn as a witness, not knowing the obligation of an oath, the court will not postpone the trial, for the purpose of having the child instructed, although this may be done, under circumstances, where the child is of more mature age, but neglected education. R. v. Nicholas, 2 Car. & K. 246. 478.-Forgery. A bill was payable to several persons, not partners, and the prisoner forged the indorsement of one of them: this was holden to be a forgery of an indorsement within the meaning of the statute, although this indorsement of itself had not the effect of rendering the bill negotiable. R. v. Winterbottom, 2 Car. & K. 37. 478.-Upon an indictment for forgery of an order for the payment of money, it must appear in evidence that it purported to be drawn on a person who was bound to obey it; and where the instrument was described as a warrant and order," and it was a warrant, but not an order, Wightman, J., directed an acquittal. R. v. Williams, 2 Car. & K. 51. 495.-A society, whose rules did not express the purpose for which it was formed, but whose funds were applied in loans to the members, and it was called the "Economical Loan Society," was holden not to be a friendly society within stat. 10 G. 4, c. 56, &c. R. v. Shortridge et al., 1 Dowl. & Lo. 855. INDEX TO THE FIRST VOLUME. A. Abandonment of appeal against a bastardy order, 203. Abettors, how punishable, 3 :-in homicide, how punishable, Abortion, giving a woman drugs, or using an instrument, to Absconding of apprentices, in what cases they shall serve or Abusing female children, under the age of ten, 243; punish- Acceptance of bill of exchange, forgery of, 478. Access of husband, want of, what, to make the children of a Accessory, 3-accessory before the fact, who, 5; not in |