1835.

Maliciously

throwing oil of vitriol over prosecutor's

face, with intent to disfi

gure, &c., and so wounding his face, is not

a wounding within the statute 9 G. 4. c. 31. s. 12.

REX v. ANN MURROW.

THE prisoner was indicted before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE TINDAL, at the Liverpool Summer assizes, 1835, under the 9 G. 4. c. 31. s. 12., for maliciously wounding Samuel Wade.

In one count the act was stated to be done with intent to do him grievous bodily harm; and in another count with intent to disfigure him.

Upon the trial, it was proved that the prisoner had maliciously thrown a quantity of concentrated sulphuric acid, commonly called oil of vitriol, into the face of the prosecutor, with intent to disfigure him; and the jury found, upon the evidence of the surgeons, that the effect of such act of the prisoner was a wound upon the face of the prosecutor.

The prisoner was thereupon found guilty, but the learned JUDGE deferred passing sentence until the opinion of THE JUDGES was taken, whether this was a wounding within the contemplation of the statute?

This case was considered at a meeting of all THE JUDGES, (except LITTLEDALE J., BOSANQUET J., VAUGHAN J., and BOLLAND B.,) in Michaaelmas term, 1835, and they held that there being no instrument used, nor an immediate wound produced, the conviction was wrong. (a)

(a) Rex v. Stevens, suprà, 409.

REX v. ELLEN WATERS.

pro

1835.

child three weeks old,

Eliza, without any surname,

in an indict

THE prisoner was tried before LORD DENMAN C. J., An illegitimate at Shrewsbury Summer assizes, 1835, for the wilful murder of Eliza Waters, of the age of three weeks. which had been baptized There were three counts in the indictment, the first by the name of of which was abandoned by the counsel for the secution. The 2d count stated, that the prisoner was described effected the murder "by placing her hands over the mouth and nostrils of the deceased, and thereby imDeding and stopping the respiration of the deceased." The 3d count stated that the prisoner effected the murder by "fixing her hands around her neck, and placing them on the mouth and nostrils of the ceased, and thereby suffocating her."

de

ment as Eliza Waters,

Waters being

the name of Held a misdescription, having ac

her mother:

the child not

quired such name by repu

Two objections were made: 1st, to the description tation of the deceased; 2d, to the statement of the mode of producing death.

As to the 1st, the deceased was the child of the prisoner, who was a single woman; a witness stated, that she took the child to be baptized, and it was baptized by the name of "Eliza." The register was not produced at the trial, nor any copy of it; no surname was mentioned at the time of baptism. The learned JUDGE asked the jury whether the child was properly called "Eliza Waters;" whether they would in conversation have called her by that name; and whether, if they had heard that name used, knowing that Ellen Waters's child had been baptized “ Eliza,” they would have understood the deceased to be spoken of?

As to the cause of death, the learned LORD CHIEF JUSTICE directed the jury, if they believed the prisoner to have produced the death, to find whether it

1836.

WATERS'S
Case.

was done by means of pressure on the body, or by laying any thing upon her nostrils with violence; the medical evidence being that the death might have been produced in either of these ways, but in no other.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and said that the death was effected by suffocation, but they could not say in what particular way.

This case was considered in Hilary term, 1836, by LORD DENMAN C. J., TINDAL C. J., LORD Abinger C. B., PARK J., LITTLEDALE J., GASELEE J., PARKE B., BOLLAND B., GURNEY B., WILLIAMS J., and they held the child did not acquire the name of Waters by reputation, and the conviction therefore wrong.(a)

(a)" And, as Littleton saith, a bastard is quasi nullius filiús, and can have no name of reputation as soone as he is borne." Co. L. 36. See Rex v. Smith, suprà, 402.

1836.

Prisoner was

convicted on

an indictment
for setting fire
with intent
to injure

A. B. The

A.

intent to

injure C. D. Conviction held good.

REX v. HENRY NEWILL.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. JUSTICE GASELEE at the Summer assizes, 1835, for the county of Northampton, upon an indictment which stated,

First count, That he on &c. at Chelveston cum Calproperty fired decott, on 2d February, 5 W. 4., with, &c., unlawbelonged to 4. B. The fully, maliciously, and feloniously did set fire to a jury found the certain outhouse there situate, in the possession of Joseph Chettle, with intent thereby then and there to injure the said Joseph Chettle, and to a certain stack An indictment of straw of the value of 31., of and belonging to the said Joseph Chettle, then and there standing and being, against the statute &c., and against the peace, &c. Second count, for setting fire to the outhouse. Third count, for unlawfully, maliciously, and feloing any intent niously setting fire to a certain stack of straw of the to injure.

under 7 & 8

G. 4. c. 30. s. 17., for setting fire to a stack of

straw is good,

without stat

value, &c., of and belonging to the said Joseph Chettle, then and there standing and being, against the statute, &c., and against the peace, &c. not saying with intent to injure, &c. (a)

The trial was of considerable length, and the prisoner had no counsel. On summing up the evidence, the learned JUDGE told the Jury that there were two questions for their consideration: 1st, Whether the prisoner was guilty of setting fire to the premises; 2d, as to the outhouse, supposing it was properly described in the indictment (with respect to which he should take the opinion of THE JUDGES) with intent to injure whom?

Upon the first point, the case was one of circumstantial evidence, which was left to the jury, with remarks.

Upon the second point, Chettle, the prosecutor, had sworn that there had never been any quarrelbetween him and the prisoner, and there was evidence of the prisoner's having endeavoured to throw suspicions on Charles Smith; but the learned JUDGE told the jury, that the law was, that a person who did an act wilfully, necessarily intended that which must be the consequence of the act, and that the consequence here was injury to the prosecutor, who was injured by the destruction of his property.

The learned JUDGE also desired them to consider whether there could be a man so wicked as to set fire to the premises of one man with the intent to charge another with having done it, or to cause him to be suspected of having done it, however he might endeavour to charge him with it, or to cause him to be suspected of having done it after the act had been committed.

(a) These words are not in the 17th section of the statute.

1836.

NEWILL'S

Case.

1836.

NEWILL'S

Case.

The jury, after considering some short time, said, they were very sorry, but they must find the prisoner guilty with intent to injure Charles Smith.

The learned JUDGE asked them if they were content their verdict should be, that they found no intent to injure Chettle except so far as by law it must be so considered; to which they agreed.

The learned JUDGE respited the judgment that the opinion of THE JUDGES might be taken on the finding of the jury, and also whether the outhouse and stack, or either and which of them, are properly described in the indictment as such.

The following was the account given by the prosecutor:- That on Monday night, the 2d of February, a fire took place at his premises, of straw and an outbuilding. The straw was a stack. They both adjoined a regular stack, stacked across the yard as a fence to the cowyard; it was five feet high and thirty feet long. The building was a shelter hovel for cows to go under, with one door; there was a partition inside; one side was open, into which the cows could go at pleasure, the other with a door was for the pigs; the walls were stone; the roof with straw laid on and thatch laid on the straw; this was between fifty and sixty yards from the dwelling house. The greatest part of the outbuilding was burnt; a little of it was left, which was slacked with

water.

The greatest part of the straw was burnt where it adjoined the hovel; it was principally wheat straw, the greatest part; the bottom part was of wheat straw, made up after the wheat was carriedhalf a load- the stack was three load; there was stubble at the top to keep the straw from blowing away. It is not usual to put stubble on all straw stacks, but just as the farmer pleases. The outbuilding is called a shelter hovel, partitioned off for