of some of them dropped off like a powder, and the ends of some of the straw had been reduced to ashes; no part of the wood, either in the pieces on which the straw was laid, or in the posts of the building, was burnt. The opinion of the THE JUDGES was requested on the questions 1st. Whether the building were an out-house within the meaning of the 7 & 8 G. 4. c. 30. s. 2., for there was no ground for saying that it could be called a coach-house, or a building and erection used in carrying on the trade of a poulterer? 2d. Whether, in case the building were an outhouse, the straw (as above described) were a part of the building? 3d. Whether this was a setting on fire? The prisoner was, after this trial, convicted on another indictment of setting fire to a barn, but Mr. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE passed the sentence on the conviction on the first-mentioned indictment. This case was considered in Michaelmas term, 1833, by all THE JUDGES, (except Lord LYNDHUrst, PARK J., GURNEY B.,) and all, except TINDAL C. J., thought the erection an out-house, and that the conviction was right. 1833. STALLION'S Case. 1833. murder of a REX v. MARY SMITH. Indictment for THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON GUrney, female bastard at the Summer assizes, 1833, for the county of Staf ford, for the murder of a certain female child, whose name to the jurors was unknown. child, whose name to the jurors was unknown. The child had not been baptized, but the prisoner had said she should like it to be called Mary Ann, had called it her Mary Ann, at another time Little Mary. The father was a Baptist, the child illegiti The prisoner was a single woman; she was delivered of a female child on the 21st June, at a lodging which she had provided for lying in; she was attended by a midwife, and no secret was made of the transaction. On the evening of the 3d July, when the child was 12 days old, she left her lodging, taking the child with her, saying she was going home to Harrison's (her master), and she drowned the child by throwing it into a canal on that evening. It appeared that the child had not been baptized. For the purpose of founding an objection to the form of the indictment, questions were put by Counsel in cross-examination to show that the child had acquired a name by reputation. The woman at whose house the prisoner was delivered said that she had heard her say, during her confinement, that she would have the child named Mary Ann, she should like it to be named Mary Ann; the midwife was asked if the prisoner did not call her Mary Ann; she said yes, and she called it Mary Ann again. When she saw it on another day, she caressed the child, and called it Little Mary. A woman who had been a few weeks in the service of Harrison (the master of the prisoner and the father of the child), and who gave evidence against the prisoner, was asked in cross-examination as to the sect to which Harrison belonged, she said she had heard him say that he was a Baptist. Godson and Lee for the prisoner, objected that the child had acquired a name by reputation, and that therefore the indictment was not proved, and they cited Rex v. Walker (a), Rex v. Clarke (b), Rex v. Sheen (c). Mr. BARON GURNEY reserved the point for the consideration of the JUDGES, and forbore to pass sentence upon the prisoner. This case was considered in Michaelmas term 1833, by all THE JUDGES, (except LORD LYNDHURST C. B., PARK J., and GURNEY B.,) and they held the conviction right. (a) 3 Campb. 264. (b) Russ. & Ry. 358. (c) 2 Car. & Payne. 634. 1833. SMITH'S Case. REX v. ROBERT CHATBURN. 1833. tion to a con THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON BOLLAND It is no objecat the Summer assizes 1833, for the county of York, viction of upon an indictment at common law, which charged manslaughter him with the offence of wilful murder. on an indictment for of murder that the indictment clude contra The jury acquitted the prisoner of the crime murder, but found him guilty of manslaughter, and does not conMr. BARON BOLLAND was proceeding to pass upon formam statuti. him the sentence of transportation for life, pursuant to the statute 9 G. 4. c. 31. s. 9., when it was objected by the counsel for the prisoner, that as the punishment of transportation for life was inflicted by statute, and the indictment upon which the prisoner was convicted, was framed for an offence at common 1833. CHATBURN'S Case. law, and did not conclude "contra formam statuti the Court had no power to pass such sentence. The prisoner was ordered to be transported for life, but at the same time told that the objection should be taken into consideration. 1833. REX v. THOMAS RUSHWORTH. THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON BOLLAND at Appleby, during the same circuit, for murder, and was also acquitted by the jury of murder and convicted of manslaughter; the same objection was made on behalf of the prisoner by his counsel, as in the last case, to passing the sentence of transportation for life. The learned BARON, however, passed that sentence, and told the prisoner that he would take the objection into his consideration. The learned JUDGE had no doubt that he was warranted in passing these judgments, the 9 G. 4. c. 31. s. 9. not having created nor altered the nature of the offence but increased the punishment only. Vide 1 Hawk. c. 30. s. 9., 2 Hawk. c. 25. ss. 115. 116., 1 Vent. 13., 2 Hale, 191. The learned BARON, however, considered it right to take the opinion of THE JUDGES upon the question, These two cases were considered by all THE JUDGES, (except Lord LYNDHURST C. B., PARK J., Littledale J., and VAUGHAN B.,) in Michaelmas term, 1833, and they held the convictions good. REX v. SAMUEL HORWELL. 1833. under 11 G. 4. 1 W.4.c.66. THE prisoner was convicted before Mr. BARON GUR- An indictment "£10. Shelton, March 1st, 1833. Two months after date, pay to my order ten pounds, for value re ceived, as advised. "William Brown. "To Messrs. Wood and Co. manufacturers, Shelton, Staffordshire. s. 3., for uttering a forged change, is not supported by proof of uttering a bill of which the acceptance only is forged. The indictment must charge the uttering "Accepted, payable at Messrs. Jones, the forged Lloyd, and Co. Bankers, London. "John Wood and Co." with intent to defraud John Alcock, Samuel Alcock, and Joseph Alcock, against the statute, &c., Second count, the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Samuel Horwell aforesaid, to wit, on the day and year first aforesaid, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, feloniously did offer, utter, dispose of, and put off a certain other forged bill of exchange (then and there knowing the same to be forged), which said lastmentioned forged bill of exchange is as follows: "10. Shelton, March 1st, 1833. Two months after date, pay to my order ten pounds, for value received, as advised. "William Brown. "To Messrs. Wood and Co., manufacturers, Shelton, Staffordshire." with intent to defraud the said John Alcock, Samuel acceptance. |