217; S. P., Reg v. Crumpton, Car. & M. 597-Patteson. Astley, 2 East, P. C. 729; Rex v. So it was held in the case of a threat to tear down corn, and level the house. Rex v. Simons, 2 East, P. C. 731. If a person by force or threats compels another to give him goods, and by way of colour obliges him to take, or if he offers less than the value, it is robbery. Rex v. Simons, If, on an indictment for a robbery with violence, the robbery was not proved, the prisoner could not be found guilty of the assault only, under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 11, unless it appeared that such assault was committed in the progress of something, which, when completed, would be, and with intent to commit, a felony. Reg. v. Green-2 East, P. C. 712; S. P., Rex v. wood, 2 C. & K. 339-Wightman. Spencer, 2 East, P. C. 712. By 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27, the 23. Hen. 8, c. 1, and 3 Will. & M. c. 9, and 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, so far as related to this subject were repealed, and 24 & 25 Vict. c. 95, repeals 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, ss. 6, 7, and 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 87. If a robber takes a purse of money from a person and restores it to him immediately, saying, "If you value your purse take it back and give me the contents," but is apprehended before the money is delivered to him, yet the crime is completed. Rex v. Peat, 1 Leach, C. C. 228; 2 East P. C. 557. Taking money from a woman at the time of an attempt to commit a rape amounts to robbery, although there was no demand of money made by the prisoner, and it was clearly his original intent only to commit a rape. Rex v. Blackham, 2 East, P. C. 711. Where money was given to one of the mob during the riots in London, in 1780, upon knocking at the prosecutor's door in a menacing manner :-Held, that it was robbery. Rex v. Taplin, 2 East, P. C. 712. Where the prisoners threatened to bring a mob from Birmingham (then in a state of riot and disturbance), and burn the prosecutor's house if he did not give them money, and he did so under fear of that threat:-Held, a robbery. Rex v. Where persons under pretence of an auction got a woman into a house, and compelled her, by threats of carrying her before a magistrate and to prison for not paying for a lot pretended to have been bid for by her, to pay them one shilling through fear of prison, and for the purpose of obtaining her liberation, but without any fear of any other personal violence :Held, not robbery, but only duress. Rex v. Wood, 2 East, P. C. 732. To obtain money by a threat to send for a constable, and take the party before a magistrate, and thence to prison, is not robbery; for the threat of legal imprisonment ought not so to alarm any mind as to induce the person to part with his property. Rex v. Knewland, 2 Leach, C. C. 721; 2 East, P. C. 732. If the property is not taken by violence, nor parted with through fear, it is no robbery; though there was sufficient legal and reasonable ground for fear, as upon a threat to charge one with an unnatural crime. Rex v. Reane, 2 East, P. C. 734; 2 Leach, C. C. 616. Suddenly snatching a bundle from the hands of a boy as the prisoner ran past him, is only larceny, as there was not a sufficient degree of force and terror to constitute robbery. Rex v. Macaulay, 1 Leach, C. C. 287; S. P., Rex v. Robins, 1 Leach, C. C. 290, n. But snatching an article from a ened has been guilty of such crime or not. Rex v. Gardner, 1 C. & P. man will constitute robbery, if it To force an ear-ring from the ear of a lady, with a felonious intent to steal it, is a sufficient degree of violence to constitute robbery; and to remove it from the ear to the curls of her hair, where it accidentally remained, is a sufficient carrying away. Rex v. Lapier, 1 Leach, C. C. 320; 2 East, P. C. 557, 708. To snatch a diamond pin from the head-dress of a lady, with such force as to remove it with part of the hair from the place in which it was fixed, is a sufficient violence to constitute robbery. Rex v. Moore, 1 Leach, C. C. 335. Snatching property from the hand of another is not sufficient force to constitute highway robbery. Rex v. Baker, 1 Leach, C. C. 290; 2 East, P. C. 702. To constitute the crime of highway robbery, the force used must be force with intent to overpower the party, and prevent his resistance; and if the force used is not with that intent, but only to get possession of the property of the party attacked, it is not highway robbery. Rex v. Gnosil, 1 C. & P. 304-Garrow. The crime of robbery may be committed by obtaining money from a man, by threatening to charge him with having been guilty of sodomitical practices. Rex v. Jones, 1 Leach, C. C. 139. If a man obtains property from another by accusing him of having been guilty of an unnatural crime, it will amount to robbery, although the party was under no apprehension of personal danger, and felt no other fear than that of losing his character. Rex v. Hickman, 1 Leach, C. C. 278; 2 East, P. C. 728. Semble, it is still robbery to extort money by threatening a charge of sodomy. Reg. v. Stringer, 2 M. C. C. 261. To constitute robbery by taking money from another upon a threat of charging him with an unnatural crime, the money must be taken immediately upon the threat made, and not after the parties have separated, and there has been time for the prosecutor to deliberate and procure assistance. Rex v. Jackson, 1 East, P. C. Add. xxi; 1 Leach, C. C. 193, n.; 2 Leach, C. C. 618, n. Parting with property upon the charge of an unnatural crime will not make the taking a robbery, if it is parted with, not from the fear of loss of character, but for the purpose of prosecuting. Fuller, R. & R. C. C. 4C8. Rex v. Where money was obtained by calling a man a sodomite and threatening him, but the money was parted with by the prosecutor, not so much from fear of losing his character as from fear of losing his place:-Held, that it was sufficient to constitute a robbery. Rex v. Elmstead, 2 Russ. C. & M. 128. Obtaining money by threatening to charge a man with an unnatural crime, and carry him before a magistrate, is robbery, if there is any constraint upon his -person. Rex v. Cannon, R. & R. C. C. 146. To obtain money from a person against his will, by threatening to carry him before a magistrate, and to accuse him of unnatural practices, amounts to robbery, though no actual or personal violence is used. Rex v. Donnally, 1 Leach, C. C. 193; 2 East, P. C. 713, 783. It is equally a robbery to extort money from a person, by threaten- The parting with money or goods, ing to accuse him of an unnatural through fear of loss of character crime, whether the party so threat-and service, upon a charge of so domitical practices, is sufficient to constitute robbery, although the party has no fear of being taken into custody, nor any dread of punishment. Rex v. Egerton, R. & R. C. C. 375. A. Rex v. Fallows, 5 C. & P. 508 A. was attacked by robbers, who, after using very great violence towards him, took from him a piece of paper, on which was written a memorandum respecting some mon Obtaining money from a woman by threatening to accuse her hus-ey that a person owed him:-Held, band of an indecent assault is not robbery. Rex v. Bingley, 5 C. & robbery. Rex v. Edwards, 5 C. & P. 602-Gurney. P. 518; S. C. nom. Rex v. Edward, 1 M. & Rob. 257-Littledale. If a bailiff handcuffs a prisoner, under pretence of carrying him to prison with greater safety, and by means of this violence extorts money, he is guilty of robbery. Rex v. Gascoigne, 1 Leach, C. C. 280; 2 East, P. C. 709. If a gang of poachers attacks a gamekeeper and leaves him senseless on the ground, and one of them returns and steals his money: Held, that one only can be convicted of the robbery, as it was not in pursuance of any common intent. Rex v. Hawkins, 3 C. & P. 392-Park. A. had set wires in which game was caught; B., a gamekeeper, found them and took them, with the game caught in them, for the use of the lord of the manor: A. demanded them with menaces, and B. gave them up. The jury found that A. acted under a bonâ fide impression that the wires and game were his property:-Held, that it was no robbery. Rex v. Hall, 3 C. & P. 409-Vaughan. A. asked B. what o'clock it was, and B. took out his watch to tell him, holding his watch loosely in both his hands. A. caught hold of the ribbon and key attached to the watch and snatched it from B., and made off with it:-Held, no robbery, but a stealing from the person. Reg. v. Hughes, 2 C. & K. 214-Patteson. In order to constitute the offence of robbery, not only force must be employed by the party charged therewith, but it is necessary to shew that that force was used with the intent to accomplish the robbery. Reg. v. Edwards, 1 Cox, C. C. 32-Alderson. When it appeared that a wound had been accidentally inflicted on the hand of the prosecutrix :-Held, that an indictment for robbery was not sustainable. Ib. A creditor having violently assaulted his debtor, and so forced him to give him a cheque in part payment, and having then again assaulted him, in order to force him to give him money in payment of the debt:-Held, that as there was no felonious intent, he could not properly be convicted of robbery. Reg. v. Hemmings, 4 F. & F. 50 2. Garotting. A. and B. were walking together, B. carrying A.'s bundle, when C. and D. came up and assaulted A.:-Erle. B. threw down the bundle, and ran to the assistance of A., when C. took it up and made off with it. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 21, C. and D. were indicted for rob- "whosoever shall, by any means bery, A. being the prosecutor:-"whatsoever, attempt to choke, Held, that they could not be con- "suffocate or strangle any other victed of the robbery, but only of" person, or shall, by any means simple larceny, as the thing stolen" calculated to choke, suffocate or was not in the personal custody of "strangle, attempt to render any "other person insensible, uncon- of the time, and that he was a "scious or incapable of resistance, party, with A., to a design to bring "with intent in any of such cases the prosecutor to the place where "thereby to enable himself or any he was robbed by A., and to obtain "other person to commit, or with property from him on a false charge "intent in any of such cases there- of an unnatural crime, but that he "by to assist any other person in was not aiding or assisting in, or "committing, any indictable of privy to the taking of, the property "fence, shall be guilty of felony, from the prosecutor by violence :"and, being convicted thereof, shall Held, that, in order to convict B., "be liable, at the discretion of the the indictment should have been court, to be kept in penal servitude framed on 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. "for life, or for any term not less 87, s. 4; and that he could not, "than five years (27 & 28 Vict. c. since the passing of the statute, 47), or to be imprisoned for any under the circumstances of the "term not exceeding two years, case, be convicted on an indictment "with or without hard labour." charging the offence of robbery. Reg. v. Taunton, 9 C. & P. 309; 2 M. C. C. 118. 66 3. Indictment. An indictment for a robbery on an unmarried woman in her maiden name is good, although she marRex v. Pelfry-ries before the indictment is found. Rex v. Turner, 1 Leach, C. C. 536. An indictment for a highway robbery must state that the assault was feloniously made with an of fensive weapon. man, 2 Leach, C. C. 563; 2 East, P. C. 783. An indictment for robbery need not have the word "violently;" but it must appear upon the whole statement that violence was used. Rex v. Smith, 2 East, P. C. 784. A servant was set out by his master to receive money from his master's customers, and having received the money, he was robbed of it on his way home. Semble, that an indictment for this robbery, in which the money was laid to be the property of his master, could not be supported, as the money had never been in the possession of the master. Reg. v. Rudick, 8 C. & P. 237-Alderson. And when, in such a case, the objection was taken during the trial, the judge directed the jury to be discharged, and a new indictment to be sent to the grand jury, containing a count laying the property in the servant. Ib. A. and B. were indicted for the offence of robbery. The jury found that A. took the property of the prosecutor from him by violence, and that B. was present during part FISH. DIG.-33. Where several are indicted for robbery, it is not necessary to aver that they were together, but where one only of the party is indicted, it ought to be averred that he committed the offence "together with others." Raffety's case, 2 Lewin, C. C. 271-Patteson. See Reg. v. Ramsden, 1 Cox, C. C. 37-per Maule, contrà. An indictment for robbery, which charges the prisoners with having assaulted G. P. and H. P., and stolen 28. from G. P. and 18. from H. P., is correct, if the robbing of G. P. and H. P. was all one act; and, if it were so, the counsel for the prosecution will not be put to elect. Reg. v. Giddins, Car. & M. 634-Tindal. 4. Evidence. On an indictment for robbery, the declaration in articulo mortis of the party robbed is not admissible in evidence. Rex v. Lloyd, 4 C. & P. 233-Bolland. A. and B., when riding in a gig together, were robbed at the same time, A. of his money, B. of his that, if the jury thought that D. was not robbed by any of the pris oners, but had been assaulted by all of them, they might find all guilty of the assault. Reg. v. Barnett, 2 C. & K. 594; 3 Cox, C. C. 432— Cresswell. watch, and violence used towards | by him was an independent assault both. There was an indictment unconnected with the robbery; but for the robbing of A., and another indictment for the robbing of B.: -Held, that, on the trial of the first indictment, evidence might be given of the fact of the loss of the watch by B., and that it was found on one of the prisoners, but that no evidence ought to be given of any violence offered to B. by the robbers. Rex v. Rooney, 7 C. & P. 517-Littledale. In a case of robbery from the person, where the property alleg. ed to have been stolen has not been seen or known to be safe immediately before the robbery, if there is any evidence on the subject, it is for the jury to say whether the property was really in a position to be stolen as alleged. Reg. v. Wil kins, 10 Cox, C. C. 363—Chambers, C. S. 5. Assault with Intent to Rob. If persons who had formed part of a mob obtain money from a party by advising him to give money to the mob, and are indicted for this as a robbery, the prosecutor, to shew that this was not bonâ fide advice, may give evidence of demands of money made by the same mob at other places, before or afterwards in the course of the same By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 42, day, if any of the prisoners were "whosoever shall assault any per present on those occasions. Rex v." son, with intent to rob, shall be Winkworth, 4 C. & P. 444-Parke." guilty of felony, and, being conAn indictment for robbery charg-"victed thereof, shall (save and exed that A. and B. together assaulted cept in the cases where a greater C., and robbed him of his watch." punishment is provided by this At the trial C. did not appear, and "act) be liable, at the discretion of there was no evidence of the felony, "the court, to be kept in penal servbut a witness saw C. on the ground "itude for the term of five years on the night in question, and sever- "(27 & 28 Vict. c. 47), or to be al persons around him abusing him, imprisoned for any term not exand this witness saw A. strike C." ceeding two years, with or withThe jury convicted A. of an assault, "out hard labour, and with or but said that they were not satisfied "without solitary confinement.” that A. had any intent to rob C. :- Former provisions, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. Held, that the conviction was right. 29, s. 6; 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 87, Reg. v. Birch, 2 C. & K. 193; 1 s. 6.) Den. C. C. 185. 66 66 By s. 43," whosoever shall, being "armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, rob, or assault 66 Evidence of footmarks is, per se, insufficient evidence on which to convict of a robbery. Reg. v. Brit-" with intent to rob, any person, or ton, 1 F. & F. 354-Watson. shall, together with one or more A., B. and C. were indicted for "other person or persons, rob, or having robbed and beaten D. A. "assault with intent to rob, any knocked D. down, and it was im-" person, or shall rob any person, and puted that B. and C. stole the prop"at the time of or immediately beerty from his pockets :-Held, that "fore or immediately after such if B. and C. stole the property, and "robbery, shall wound, beat, strike, A. did not participate in the rob- " or use any other personal violence bery, A. could not be convicted of "to any person, shall be guilty of an assault, as the assault committed" felony, and, being convicted there |