acts charged in the indictment. | connected as to form one continuing Reg. v. Holt, 8 Cox, C. C. 411; Bell, C. C. 280; 30 L. J., M. C. 11; 6 Jur., N. S. 1121; 9 W. R. 74; 3 L. T., N. S. 310. On an indictment for obtaining money by false pretences, if it is consistent with the evidence for the prosecution that the object of the false pretence was something else than the obtaining of the money, the charge will not be sustainable. Reg v. Stone, 1 F. & F. 311—Wil les. On an indictment against a defendant for obtaining goods by falsely pretending that he was of full age, a plea of infancy in an action brought against him is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he was a minor. Reg. v. Simmonds, 4 Cox, C. C. 277. A prisoner was indicted for obtaining money from A. by false pretences. A.'s wife, by her husband's direction, delivered the money to the prisoner in the absence of her husband-Held, that the money was obtained from A. Reg. v. Moseley, L. & C. 92; 9 Cox, C. C. 16; 7 Jur., N. S. 1108; 31 L. J., M. C. 24; 10 W. R. 61; 5 L. T., N. S. 328. The money of a benefit society, whose rules were not inrolled, was kept in a box, of which E., one of the stewards, and two others had keys. The prisoner, on the false pretence that his wife was dead, which pretence he made to the clerk of the society in the hearing of E., obtained from the hands of E. out of the box 57.:-Held, that, in an indictment, the pretence might be laid as made to E., and the money, the property of E. and others," obtained from E. Reg. v. Dent, 1 C. & K. 249-Rolfe and Recorder Law. 66 Upon an indictment for obtaining money by false pretences, where it appears that statements were made on different occasions, it is a question for the jury whether they are so representation. Reg. v. Welman, Dears. C. C. 188; 17 Jur. 421; 22 L. J., M. C. 118; 6 Cox, C. C. 153. A. was indicted for obtaining 2007. by falsely pretending that he had obtained from Lord S. the appointment of emigration agent, which was worth 600l. a year, and that, for 2007., he would give the prosecutor one-third of the agentship. The prosecutor proved, that he gave the money on this pretence, which was false; but that, before he parted with his money, the prisoner prevailed on him to execute a deed of copartnership with him, in which the consideration was stated to be 2007., and in which nothing was said of the agentship, or how it was obtained :-Held, that the putting in of this deed on the part of the prosecution did not exclude the parol evidence of the false pretences; and that, if the deed was a part of the scheme to effect the fraud, the prisoner should be found guilty. Reg v. Adamson, 1 C. & K. 192; 2 M. C. C. 286. A. was charged with an attempt, by false pretences made to "John Baggally and others," fraudulently to obtain goods the property of the same parties. The evidence was, that the representation was made to John Baggally alone:-Held, that there was no variance, as the words "and others" might be rejected as surplusage. Reg. v. Kealey, T. & M. 405; 2 Den. C. C. 69; 15 Jur. 230; 20. L. J., M. C. 57; 5 Cox, C. C. 193. On an indictment for obtaining money by a false pretence that a parcel contained all letters written by the prosecutrix to the prisoner, and which he had promised, in consideration of the money, to give up, the counsel for the prosecution is not bound to have the letters read, although the counsel for the prisoner may cross-examine as to the contents of any of them, and have any read for that purpose. Colucci, 3 F. & F. 104. TRIAL. Reg. v. An indictment alleged that the prisoner obtained goods by falsely pretending that a person who lived in a large house down the street, and had had a daughter married some time back, had asked him to procure the goods. The prisoner made the statement alleged to a shopkeeper in a village, and thereby obtained the goods; but the only evidence to disprove the truth of the statement was that of a lady who lived in the village, whose daughter had been married a year previously, who stated that she had not sent the prisoner to the prosecutor's shop for the goods. The jury having found him guilty :-Held, that the conviction might be sustained. Reg. v. Burnsides, 6 Jur., N. S. 1310; 30 3 L. L. J., M. C. 42; 9 W. R. 37; T., N. S. 311; Bell, C. C. 282; 8 Cox, C. C. 370. 9. Trial. 169 that Where a prisoner, in a begging letter, which contained false pretences, and was addressed to the prosecutor, who resided in Middlesex, requesting him to put a letter, containing a post-office order for money, in a post-office in Middlesex, to be forwarded to the prisoner's address in Kent:- Held, the venue was rightly laid in Middlesex, as the prisoner, by directing the money order to be sent by post, constituted the post-master in Middlesex his agent to receive it there for him; and that, consequently, there was a receipt of the money order by the prisoner within the county of Middlesex. Reg. v. Jones, 1 Den. C. C. 551; 4 New Sess. Cas. 353; 14 Jur. 533; 19 L. J., M. C. 162. The prisoner wrote and posted in a county a letter containing a false pretence to the prosecutor, who reB. was charged in a first count ceived it in a borough. The proswith obtaining money from the ecutor in the borough posted to the trustees of a savings bank by false- prisoner in the county a letter conly pretending that a document pre- taining the money obtained by the sented to the bank by the wife of false pretence, and which the prisD. had been filled up by the au- oner received in the county :-Held, thority of D.; and in a second that under 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. count, he was charged with con- 12, which authorises the trial in spiring with the wife of D. to any jurisdiction where the offence cheat the bank. The evidence of is begun or completed, the prisoner D. was received, in proof of the might be tried for the offence of obfirst count, to show that he had taining the money by false pretence given no authority to fill up the at the borough quarter sessions; document or to withdraw the de- part of the offence being the makposit. The jury found him guilty ing the false pretence, and the false on the first count, and not guilty pretence being made to the proseon the second count:-Held, first, cutor in the borough, where the that the evidence of D. was proper-letter containing the false pretence ly received in proof of the first count, his wife not being indicted, although she was alleged to be one of the parties to the conspiracy in the second count. Reg. v. Halliday, Bell, C. C. 257; 29 L. J., M. C. 148; 8 Cox, C. C. 298. Held, secondly, that finding him guilty on the first count was consistent with finding him not guilty on the second count. FISH. DIG.-12. Ib. was delivered to him by the postoffice authorities, whom the prisoner made his agents for that purpose. Reg. v. Leech, Dears. C. C. 642; 2 Jur., N. S. 428; 25 L. J., M. C. 77 ; 7 Cox, C. C. 100. One who obtains goods by false pretences in one county, and afterwards brings them into another county, where he is apprehended with them, cannot be indicted for the offence in the county, but must Indictment.]-An indictment at common law, charging the defendants with having unlawfully, and with a strong hand, entered the prosecutor's mill, and expelled him from the possession, is good. Rex v. Wilson, 8 T. R. 357. To constitute a forcible entry, or a forcible detainer, it is not necessary that any one should be assaulted, but only that the entry or the detainer should be with such numbers of persons, and show of force, as is calculated to deter the rightful owner from sending the persons away, and resuming his own possession. Milner v. Maclean, 2 C. & P. 17— Abbott. On an indictment for obtaining money by a false pretence which was alleged to have been by sending a certain false return of fees to the commissioners of the Treasury, it appearing that the return was received by them in Westminster, with a letter dated Northampton, and an affidavit sworn there; and that they, on the faith of it, drew up a minute, which operated as an authority to the paymaster-general to pay a certain amount to the prisoner (as compensation under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96) at Westminster, the venue laid being Northamptonshire: -Held, that there was reasonable evidence that the false representation was forwarded from Northampton; that it was, if false and fraudulent, a false pretence within the statute; that in effect the money was obtained by means of the minute, being a mere matter of regulation, and not a judicial pro-liams, 4 M. & R. 471; 9 B. & C. ceeding; and that, therefore, the venue was right, and the indictment was supported. Reg. v. Cooke, 1 F. & F. 64-Coleridge. Where a misdemeanor consists of different parts, so much of the charge as amounts to a misdemeanor in law must be proved in the county in which the venue is laid. Pearson v. M'Gowran, 3 B. & C. 700; 5 D. & R. 616. 10. Receiving Property obtained by False Pretences. On the trial of an indictment for receiving goods, knowing them to have been obtained by false pretences, if the jury is not satisfied that the prisoner knew that the goods were obtained by false pretences, the receiver is entitled to be acquitted. Reg. v. Rymes, 3 C. & K.327 -Williams. Upon the trial of an indictment for a forcible entry or a detainer, the party dispossessed was not a competent witness for the prosecution, before 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, and 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99. Rex v. Wil 549; S. P., Rex v. Beavan, 242. On the trial of such an indictment, the defendant cannot impeach the title of the party dispos sessed. Ib. A person having no possession or title to premises, but fraudulently pretending to have such title, and so allowed by the servant of the true owner to enter, does not thereby acquire possession, but may be forcibly expelled by him on discovery of the fraud; and if in such a case assaults are committed in consequence, the question for the jury will be, whether there has been an excess of violence. A subsequent attempt by force to re-enter, and so causing an affray :-Held, an indictable offence, for which the party might be given in charge. Collins v. Thomas, 1 F. & F. 416-Campbell. Semble, in an indictment for forcible entry, it is not necessary to allege the prosecutor's title to the property, it is sufficient to state the possession; but if the title is stated it need not be proved. Reg. v. Child, 2 Cox, C. Č. 102-Rolfe. An indictment for a forcible entry cannot be supported by evidence of a mere trespass; but there must be proof of such force, or at least such shew of force, as is calculated to prevent any resistance. Rex. v. Smyth, 5 C. & P. 201; 1 M. & Rob. 156-Tenterden. A wife separated from her husband took a house, of which the husband, with the landlord's consent, obtained possession. Semble, that if the wife came with others, and made a forcible entry into this house, she might be convicted on an indictment for forcible entry, stating it to be the house of the husband. Ib. A constable entered a house with a warrant in his hand, and searched the house; and for such entering and searching was indicted for forcible entry :-Held, that his counsel might ask the witnesses for the prosecution what the constable said, at the time, as to whom he was searching for. Ib. If a tenant of a house, after regular notice to quit, abandons it, and locks it up, leaving some articles of furniture in it, and the landlord breaks it open and takes possession, the tenant cannot maintain trespass; his remedy, if any, is by indictment for forcible entry. Turner v. Meymott, 7 Moore, 574; 1 Bing. 158. See Hillary v. Gay, 6 C. &. P. 284; Newton v. Harland, 1 Scott, N. R. 474; 1 M. & G. 644; Burling v. Read, 11 Q. B. 904; Pollen v. Brewer, 7 C. B., N. S. 371. tions as to cutting the trees :-Held, that he had not got a title so as to enable him to sue a claimant under the owner for a forcible entry. Allen v. England, 3 F. & F. 49-Erle. The court refused to grant a mandamus to compel magistrates to hear a complaint and act summarily under the statutes relating to forcible entry and detainer. Ďavy, Ex parte, 2 D., N. S. 24—B. C.— Wightman. Conviction by Justices.]-The 8 Hen. 6, c. 9, was intended to give a summary jurisdiction in case of forcible detainer, after an unlawful entry; and a conviction by justices on that statute, merely stating, an entry and a forcible detainer, is insufficient. Rex v. Oakley, 4 B. & Ad. 307; 1 N. & M. 58. The 15 R. 2, c. 2, gave justices a summary jurisdiction to convict, on their own view, for a forcible detainer after a forcible entry. 1b. In a conviction under 8 Hen. 6, c. 9, for a forcible detainer, it must appear on the face of the conviction that there was an unlawful entry. Rex v. Wilson, 5 N. & M. 164; 3 A. & E. 817; 1 H. & W. 387. A conviction under a forcible detainer, on the view merely of the justices, without any evidence of an unlawful entry, is bad, even though information and complaint of an unlawful expulsion are stated. Ib. In a conviction for a forcible detainer, under 8 Hen. 6, c. 9, where the magistrates proceed upon view, it is not necessary to set out the particular facts presented to their view. Rex v. Wilson, 3 N. & M. 753; 1 A. & E. 627. At the time of the conviction, the defendant tendered to the justices a traverse of the force comA person using land as a garden plained of; and a few days after for more than twenty years, under an inquisition was held before the permission from the owner to do so, magistrates, for the purpose of tryin order to keep it from trespassers, ing the alleged force by a jury, the owner from time to time com- who, after hearing evidence ading on the land and giving direc-duced by both parties, found the defendant guilty; and the magistrates then gave restitution. A return was made to the court, on certiorari, of the conviction and inquisition. The latter was then entitled an inquisition, by the oaths of twelve &c., before &c., who say upon their oaths that &c.; stating an unlawful entry and detainer, but not reciting any complaints made by the prosecutor:-Held, that the inquisition was founded on the conviction, and could not be sustained, the conviction being void; and that the inquisition, even if looked at alone, was bad, as it did not state any complaint, nor by what authority the jury was summoned. Ib. In order to justify a conviction by justices, under 15 Řich. 2, c. 2, and 8 Hen. 6, c. 9, it must be proved before them that there was, as well an unlawful entry on the premises as a forcible detainer. Attwood v. Joliffe, 3 New Sess. Cas. 116-Q. B. Where a conviction stated that justices had convicted A. of forcible detainer upon their own view, and that afterwards a complaint was made to the justices that A. forcibly entered the premises, and that notice of such complaint was given to A., who received the notice, but said nothing, and then went on to allege that the justices received evidence on oath of the unlawful entry-Held, that the conviction was bad, for not, shewing that A. had been summoned to answer the charge of the unlawful entry, or that he had any opportunity afforded him of defending himself against such charge. Ib. the inner door of the hall, and some having entered that way, and some by a staircase window, overpowering the prosecutor's opposition, and furnished with a hatchet and other weapons, after a strug gle which caused a disorderly crowd to assemble, they ejected the prose cutor and his servants. From the commencement of the proceedings till the conclusion, a female servant of the prosecutors was in the kitchen:-Held, assuming the title of the prosecutor to have been bad, and that the defendants had acted by the orders of those who had a good title to the premises, that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of the defendants for a forcible entry and riot. Reg. v. Studd, 14 W. R. 806; 14 L. T., N. S. 633-C. C. R. Restitution.]-An averment in an indictment for a forcible entry that the prosecutor was seised, is sufficient to found an application for a writ of restitution; and it needs not be shewn by the prosecutor that he still continued to be seised. Rex v. Dillon, 2 Chit. 314. A judge at the assizes may, in his discretion, refuse to award restitution, after an indictment for forcible entry and detainer has been found by the grand jury, and the court has no power to review his decision. Reg. v. Harland, 1 P. & D. 93; 8 A. & E. 826; 2 Lewin, C. C. 171; 2 M. & Rob. 141. In order to authorise a justice to award restitution pursuant to an inquisition taken under 8 Hen. 6, c. 9, for a forcible entry, the inquisition should set forth the estate possessed by the party in the property disput ed. Reg. v. Bowser, 8 D. P. C. 128; 1 W. W. & H. 345. V. having been in possession of a house from May to October, the defendants called there, and, insisting that V. had no title, proceeded to take the keys out of the room doors. Upon their doing so, V. Where the indictment is brought gave them into custody for stealing before the Queen's Bench by certiothe keys; but the magistrate refus- rari, that court is bound, upon coned to detain them. They then re-viction, to award restitution. Rex turned to the house, and having v. Williams, 4 M. & R. 471; 9 B. & procured a sledge-hammer, forced C. 549. |