a pigsty with wood; part of the wood was burnt; from the barn in the line of view, are a wall, hovel, and cow-house built on the outward boundary; up from a gate on the side next the stable is a hand gate, on the other side six or seven pales. The learned JUDGE referred to the following authorities:-North's case, 2 East, 1021., 2 Russ. 492.; Winter's case, Russ. & Ry. C. C. 295.; Hiles v. Inhabitants of Shrewsbury, 3 East, 457.; Ellison's case, supra, 336.; Stallion's case, supra, 398.; Elsmore v. The Inhabitants of St. Briavel's, 8 B. & C. 461. 1836. NEWILL'S Case. firing a stack At the Spring assizes 1835, for Hertford, Thomas An indictment for setting fire Tottenham and George Cornell were tried before Mr. to a stack of JUSTICE GASELEE for setting fire to a stack of straw. supported by On the trial it appeared that the stack consisted evidence of partly of cole seed straw, and partly of wheat stubble, of haulm. after the reaping and carrying the straw; the greatest part was of the latter. The jury said the stubble was haulm, upon which, with the concurrence of LORD DENMAN, C. J., the learned JUDGE directed an acquittal. This case was considered in Hilary term, 1836, at a meeting of THE JUDGES, at which 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., were present, and they were unanimously of opinion that the indictment was right as to the intent to injure Chettle (a), and that as the seventeenth clause of the act has no words of intent, the last count was clearly good, and sufficient to support the conviction; and as a stack was burnt, they thought it unnecessary to consider the question as to the outhouse, and they affirmed the conviction. (a) See Philp's case, suprà, 263. 1836. REX v. JAMES DOUGLAS. Indictment for THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. falsely pre tending to the JUSTICE VAUGHAN at the Summer assizes 1835 for the county of the city of Lincoln, upon an indictment, which stated: prosecutor, whose mare and gelding had strayed, that he, prisoner, would tell him where they were, if he would give him a sovereign down. The prosecu tor gave the sovereign, but prisoner refused to tell: Conviction held bad; the indictment should have stated that he knew where they were. That one mare and one gelding of the goods and chattels of one Edward Young, of Newark upon Trent, in the county of Nottingham, woolstapler, had strayed away from the parish of Farndon in the said county, to a place unknown to the said Edward Young. And the jurors, &c. do further present, that James. Douglas late of, &c. devising, contriving, and intending to cheat and defraud the said Edward Young of his monies, afterwards, to wit, on, &c., at, &c. unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly, did falsely pretend to the said Edward Young, that he the said James Douglas he pretended would tell the said Edward Young where the said mare and gelding were, if he would give him a sovereign down, thereby meaning that the said James Douglas would then and there tell the said Eduard Young where the said mare and gelding then were, if he the said Edward Young would then and there give to the said James Douglas one piece of the gold coin of this realm called a sovereign, of the monies of the said Edward Young, whereas in truth and in fact he the said James Douglas would not then and there tell the said Edward Young where the said mare and gelding then were if he the said Edward Young would then and there give to the said James Douglas one sovereign of the monies of the said Edward Young; and whereas in truth and in fact the said Ed ward Young did then and there give to the said James Douglas two pieces of the gold coin of this realm called half sovereigns of the value of one pound of the monies of the said Edward Young, and thereupon the said James Douglas then and there would not tell the said Edward Young where the said mare and gelding or either of them then were. And whereas in truth and in fact the said James Douglas did not then and there, or at any other time and place, tell the said Edward Young where the said mare and gelding or either of them then were, and did not intend so to do; and whereas in truth and in fact, the said James Douglas could not then and there tell the said Edward Young where the said mare and gelding or either of them then were, he the said James Douglas then and there well knowing the same, by means of which said false pretences, the said James Douglas then and there (to wit) on, &c., and at, &c., and unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly, did obtain of and from the said Edward Young two pieces of the gold coin of this realm called half sovereigns, of the monies of the said Edward Young, with intent then and there to cheat and defraud him the said Edward Young of the same, against the statute and against the peace, &c. It appeared in evidence that the prosecutor, Edward Young, having, on the 12th July, lost a mare and pony which had strayed or been stolen from his premises, went to Lincoln in search of them, where the prisoner, who was a horse-dealer, pretending to a police officer, who had been employed to search after the mare and pony, that he knew where they were, desired to be introduced to the prosecutor; the prisoner, on being introduced to him at the Black Bull public-house, said he knew where they were, and would tell him if he would give him a sovereign: the 1836. DOUGLAS'S Case. 1836. DOUGLAS'S Case. prosecutor hesitated to give the sovereign, and referred to a reward he had offered upon conviction of any person who had stolen them, and offered to put the sovereign into the hands of the police officer present, to be paid over to the prisoner upon the mare and pony being restored to him. The prisoner refused to give the information unless the sovereign was delivered into his own hands; whereupon the prosecutor reluctantly put two half sovereigns into his right hand, which the prisoner immediately put into his pocket. The prosecutor then required the prisoner to give him the information he had promised, which he refused to do, or to return the money, saying he had no information to give him. The prisoner used very violent language, thrust his fist into the prosecutor's face, and said they might take him before any magistrate they chose; whereupon they immediately took him before the mayor of the city of Lincoln, who, upon the prisoner refusing to return the money, committed him to the city gaol to answer the charge of obtaining money under false pretences. The jury convicted the prisoner of the offence; but the learned JUDGE having some doubt whether it could be deemed a false pretence according to the true construction of the act of 7 & 8 G. 4. c. 29. s. 53., passed no sentence, and reserved the point for the opinion of THE JUDGES, whether the conviction could be sustained. See Goodhall's case, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 461., and the cases collected in Archbold, by Jervis, in page 246., 6th edition. 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., and WILLIAMS J., and they held, that the indictment should have stated that the prisoner pretended he knew where the horses 1836. were, and that the conviction was wrong. DOUGLAS'S REX v. MARIA ANN UPCHURCH. THE prisoner, a girl aged 13, was indicted and tried before Mr. BARON PARKE, at the Summer assizes, 1835, at Huntingdon, for a misdemeanor, in attempting to set fire to her master's house. 1836. A confession obtained from of the master On the part of the prosecution it was stated, that the case could not be made out without the prisoner's and prosecutor confession, and the learned BARON received it in evidence, reserving the question as to its admissibility for the consideration of the Judges. The prisoner was convicted, but the learned BARON deferred passing sentence. The prisoner was a domestic servant to the prosecutor, who kept a beer-house. His wife lived with him, and took her share in the management of the house. After the attempt to set the house on fire was discovered, the prisoner came into the room where her mistress was, in the absence of the prosecutor, and her mistress said to her, "Mary, my girl, if you are guilty do confess; it will perhaps save your neck: you will have to go to prison; if William H." (another person suspected, and whom the prisoner had charged,)" is found clear, the guilt will fall on you." She made no answer. The mistress then said, Pray, tell me if you did it." The prisoner then confessed. 66 It was contended, on the part of the prisoner, that the prosecutor's wife had no authority, real or apparent, over the prisoner so as to hold out any hope |