dictment was bad on that ground. | c. 15, for sending a threatening let Reg. v. Jones, 2 Cox, C. C. 434C. C. R. 10. Evidence. Inspection of Letter.]-If a party is indicted for sending a threatening letter, the court will, on motion of the prisoner's counsel, as soon as the bill is found, order that the let ter be deposited with the officer of the court, that the prisoner's witnesses may inspect it. Rex v. Harrie, 6 C. & P. 105-Littledale and Bolland. Of Sending.]-A letter, signed by two initials, as R. R., was a letter without a name subscribed thereto within 9 Geo. 1, c. 22. Rex v. Robinson, 2 Leach, C. C. 749; 2 East, P. C. 1110. The bare delivery of a letter containing threats, though sealed, is evidence of a knowledge of its contents. Rex v. Girkwood, 1 Leach, C. C. 142; 2 East, P. C. 1120. Indictment, with three counts for three separate letters. It was proposed to prove the sending of all three-Held, that evidence of one only was admissible. Reg. v. Ward, 10 Cox, C. C. 42-Byles. To bring the offence of sending a threatening letter within 27 Geo. 2, e. 15, the letter must have been sent to the person threatened, and it must have been so stated in the indictment Rex v. Paddle, R. & R. C. C. 484. But it seems, that sending the letter to A., in order that he may deliver it to B., is a sending to B., if the letter was delivered by A. to B. Ib. If a letter threatening to burn the premises of A., but directed to B., is left at the gate on a public highway, with the intention that it should reach as well A. as B., that was a sending to A. within 4 Geo. 4, c. 54, s. 3. Reg. v. Grimwade, 1 Cox, C. C. 85; 1 Den. C. C. 30. On an indictment on 27 Geo. 2, ter, the dropping a letter in a man's way, in order that he might pick it up, was a sending of it. Rex v. Wagstaff, R. & R. C. C. 398. The sending was within this statute, although the party saw the prisoner drop the letter, if the prisoner did not suppose the party knew him, and intended he should not. Ib. Affixing a threatening letter on a gate in a public highway, is some evidence to go to the jury of a sending thereof. Reg. v. Williams, 1 Cox, C. C. 16-Cresswell. When there is no person in existence of the precise name which the letter bears as its address, it is a question for the jury whether the party into whose hands it falls was really the one for whom it was intended. Reg. v. Carouthers, 1 Cox, C. C. 138-Maule. A prisoner was indicted for sending a threatening letter. The only evidence against him was his own statement that he should never have written it but for W. G. :—Held, not sufficient. Rex v. Howe, 7 C. & P. 268-Abinger. Of Intent.]-On the trial of an indictment for threatening to accuse the prosecutor of an infamous crime with intent to extort money, it was proved that the prisoner had gone up to the prosecutor and said to him, "If you do not give me a sovereign I will charge you with an indecent assault":-Held, that inasmuch as, if the jury believed that such language had been used by the prisoner, the intent was manifest, evidence for the prosecution tending to shew that the prisoner had made a similar charge two years before ought not to be admitted. Reg. v. McDonnell, 5 Cox, C. C. 153 -Erle. On the trial of an indictment for accusing a person of an unnatural crime with intent to extort money-the prisoner being a soldier, and the accusation having been made while he was on duty as sentry-evidence of declarations made by him on a former occasion, on coming off guard, that he had obtained money from a gentleman by threatening to take him to the guard-house and accuse him of an unnatural crime, is admissible. Reg. v. Cooper, 3 Cox, C. C. 547-Creswell. The prisoner was proved to have made the accusation in these words, "I charge this man with indecently assaulting me" :-Held, that it was a question for the jury-taking into consideration the prisoner's conduct throughout the transaction-whether by those words he did not mean to allege that the prosecutor had solicited him to the commission of an unnatural offence. Ib. 25 Edw. 3, st. 5, c. 2 (the Statute of Treasons); 1 M. sess. 1, c. 1; 36 Geo. 3, c. 7 (made perpetual by 57 Geo. 3, c. 6); 5 & 6 Vict. c. 51; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12.. 25 Edw. 3, st.5,c.2,was extended to Ireland by Poyning's Act, 10 Hen. 7, c. 10, but 36 Geo. 3, c. 7, or 57 Geo. 3, c. 6, did not extend to Ireland. See O'Brien v. Reg., 3 Cox, C. C. 360; 2 H. L. Cas. 465; but now extend to Ireland by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12, s. 2. Of Meaning of Letter.]-If the terms of a threatening letter are doubtful as to the exact accusations If in an indictment for treason it the prisoner meant to threaten, his is stated as an overt act, that the declarations subsequently made, on prisoner discharged at the sovereign being asked what he meant to im- a pistol, loaded with powder and a pute, are evidence to explain the certain bullet, and thereby made a meaning of the letter. Rex v. Tuck- direct attempt upon the life of the er, Car. C. L. 288; 1 M. C. C. 134. sovereign; the jury must be satisThe prisoner sent to the prosecut- fied that the pistol was a loaded pisor a letter, the language of which tol,—that is, there was something was ambiguous-Held, that the in it beyond the powder and wadprosecutor might be asked what ap-ding; but it seems it is not necessapeared to him to be the meaning of ry for them to be satisfied that it the letter. Reg. v. Hendy, 4 Cox, C. C. 243-Erle. Evidence is admissible to shew that, under the particular circumstances, the words in such a letter have not their ordinary meaning, but the meaning imputed to them upon the record, and therefore the witness may be asked whether he understood the meaning to be that which the record imputed. Ib. was actually loaded with that which is generally known by the name of a bullet. Reg. v. Oxford, 9 C. & P. 525-Denman, Alderson and Patteson. See 5 & 6 Vict. c. 51, S. 2. To constitute the treason of levying war against her majesty within the realm, there must be an insurrection, there must be force accompanying that insurrection, and it must be for an object of a general In case of Accessories.]—Where nature; and if a person acts as the an accessory after the fact to a leader of an armed body, who encharge of sending threatening letters a town, and their object is ters, is tried in the absence of the neither to take the town, nor atprincipal, the letters so written and tack the military, but merely to make a demonstration to the magistracy of the strength of their party, either to procure the liberation of certain prisoners convicted of some political offences, or to procure for those prisoners some mitigation of their punishment, this, though an aggravated misdemeanor, is not high treason. Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 129-Tindal, Park and Williams. The prisoner is not bound of necessity to shew what was the object or meaning of the acts done. The offence must be made out by those who make the charge. 1b. Any intelligence sent to the enemy in order to serve them in shaping their attack or defence, though the purport of it may be to dissuade them from an invasion, is high treason. Ib. Though the intelligence is intercepted. Rex v. Hensey, 2 Ld. Ken. 366; 1 Burr. 642. It is high treason to attempt, by intimidation and violence, to compel the repeal of a law. Rex v. Lord George Gordon, 2 Dougl. 590. In high treason, the overt act of one is the overt act of all; and therefore a common design must, in such cases, precede the proof of individual acts. Reg. v. Brittain, 3 Cox, C. C. 77—Coltman. Indictment, List of Witnesses, Jury, Evidence, Trial and Judgment. It will be treason in a foreigner resident here, or who is himself abroad, if his family resides here, to aid even his own countrymen in acts or purposes of hostility, wheth-2. er his own sovereign is at enmity or peace with ours, for it is a breach of the local allegiance due from him. Rex v. Delamotte, 1 East, P. C. 53. An apprehension, though ever so well grounded, of having property wasted or destroyed, or of suffering any other mischief not endangering the person, will afford no excuse for joining or continuing with rebels. Rex v. M' Growther, 1 East, P. C. 71. But it is otherwise if the party joins from fear of death or by compulsion. Rex v. Gordon, 1 East, P. C. 71. An overt act of piracy only may shew a traitorous intent against the king, in treason for adhering to the king's enemies, if the indictment alleges the intent to be to seize the ships of the king as well as his subjects. Rex v. Evans, 1 East, P. C. 80; 2 East, P. C. 798. Indictment for high treason in compassing the king's death, and adhering to his enemies. Overt act, conspiring with others to send intelligence to the enemy concerning the disposition of the king's subjects in case of an invasion. Rex v. Stone, 6 T. R. 527; 1 East, P. C. 79, 99. 35 Hen. 8, c. 2 ; 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, s. 22; 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 11, s. 12; 1 & 2 P. & M. c. 10, ss. 7 and 8; 7 & 8 Will. 3, c. 3; 7 Anne, c. 21, s. 5; 6 Geo. 3, c. 53, s. 3; 30 Geo. 3, c. 48; 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 93; 54 Geo. 3, c. 146; 6 Geo. 4, c. 50, s. 21; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 51, s. 1. Indictment.]-Semble, that counts charging a party with high treason in "compassing, &c., the maim and wounding" of his majesty, and with "compassing, &c., the wounding" of his majesty, are bad. Rex v. Collins, 5 C. & P. 305-Bosanquet and Gurney. An allegation that the prisoner indicted for high treason has not had a true copy of the indictment is not matter for a plea, but only a ground for an application for a postponement of the trial. Reg. v. Burke, 10 Cox, C. C. 519. The copy of the indictment furnished to the prisoner need not contain a copy of the indorsement of the finding of the grand jury in or der to satisfy the statute. Ib. List of Witnesses.] A person indicted for high treason is entitled, under 7 Anne, c. 21, s. 14, to a copy of the indictment, and a list of the witnesses for the crown, and of the jurymen who are to be returned on the panel, ten days before his arraignment. Rex v. Lord George Gordon, 2 Dougl. 590. On a trial for high treason, it was objected, after the jury had been charged with the prisoner, but before the first witness was examined, that the prisoner had no list of witnesses delivered to him. The indictment was found on the 11th of December, on the 12th of December a copy of it and of the panel of the jurors intended to be returned by the sheriff, were delivered to the prisoner; and on the 17th of December the list of witnesses was delivered to him. The prisoner was arraigned on the 31st of December. The objection to the delivery of the list of witnesses was, that the copy of the indictment and the list of jurors and witnesses should have been all delivered at the same time simul et semel :-Held, that the delivery of the list of witnesses was not a good delivery in point of law, but that the objection to the delivery of the list of witnesses was not made in due time; and that, if the objection had been made in due time, the effect of it would have been a postponement of the trial, in order to give time for a proper delivery of the list. Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 163; 2 M. C. C. 140; 4 Jur. 53. Description of Witnesses in Lists.] -Any objection to the description of the witness in the list of witnesses must be taken on the voir dire, and comes too late after the witness is sworn in chief. Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 183; 2 M. C. C. 140; 4 Jur. 53. The list may properly describe a party as lately of such a place. Rex v. Watson, 2 Stark. 116 Ellenborough. But if, upon the examination of the witness upon the voir dire, it ap pears that he has had a different and later place of residence, the description will not be sufficient. Ib. A witness was described in the list of witnesses as "S. S., of the parish of S. W., in the borough of N., in the county of M., labourer." N. was a place with 6,000 inhabitants, and formed only a part of the parish of S. W., which was a large parish, extending beyond the borough of N. :-Held, sufficient, and that it was neither a misdescription, nor too general. Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 147-Tindal, Parke and Williams. A witness was described in the list of witnesses as "of Cross-y-Cyloy, in the parish of L." The witness stated, that he lived near Cross-y-Clog (which means Cross of the Cock), and that there were two public houses, each so called; and that his house was between them, and sixty yards from each. It was also proved, that there was a cluster of houses at this place, and that a witness had directed invoices to one of them, as Cross-y-Clog :— Held, that the witness was not properly described. Ib. 150. A witness was described in the list of witnesses as "M. J., of P., in the parish of St. W., in the county of M., sometimes abiding at the house of his son, J. J., in the parish of B., in the said county. The witness occupied a house at P., in the parish of St. W., in which his wife resided, he going to work with his son, and returning to his house at P., about three days in every two months. The son's house was in the parish of M., and not in the parish of B. :-Held, that if the witness had been described as of P., in the parish of St. W., that would have been sufficient; but that, as the latter part of the description was incorrect, it vitiated the whole. Ib. 152. Juries and Challenges.]-If a true bill is found against a person for high treason, the judge will, on the | in a different county, will make two application of the counsel for the witnesses within 7 & 8 Will. 3, c. crown, order the sheriff to furnish 3. Rex v. Jellias, 1 East, P. C. 130. the solicitor to the treasury with a list of the persons to be summoned on the jury, that a copy of it may be delivered to the prisoner. Rex v. Collins, 5 C. & P. 305-Bosanquet and Gurney. Where the prisoner's counsel asked that the names of the jurors should be taken from a ballot-box, instead of being called over in the order in which they stood in the panel, whch was alphabetical, and this proposition was acquiesced in by the Attorney-General, the court allowed the names of the jurors to be taken from a ballot-box; but if the Attorney-General had objected, the court would not have granted the application. Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 136-Tindal, Parke, and Williams. Amendment of Panels.]-The jury panel, in cases of treason, may be amended by correcting mistakes and inserting a description of the professions of the jurors. Rex v. Hardy, 1 East, P. Č. 113. Evidence.-A letter sent by one of the conspirators, in pursuance of the common design, with a view of reaching the enemy, is evidence against all engaged in the same conspiracy. Rex v. Stone, 6 T. R. 527; 1 East, P. C. 79, 99. A paper found in the possession of one of the conspirators, containing intelligence proved to have been collected by the prisoner, which paper was in the handwriting of the prisoner's clerk, is evidence against the prisoner. Aliter, of a paper in the same handwriting not appear ing to have any connexion with the prisoner. Ib. If one overt act is proved by one witness in the county in which the trial is had, which gives the grand jury jurisdiction to inquire, another overt act of the same species of treason, proved by another witness A conviction of high treason may be upon the evidence of one witness only, in all cases where there is no corruption of blood. Rex v. Gahagan, 1 Leach, C. C. 42; 1 East, P. C. 129. As to evidence of treason, see Rex v. Horne Tooke, 1 East, P. C. 60, 69; 2 Leach, C. C. 823. In a case of high treason or conspiracy, the prosecutor may either prove the conspiracy which renders the acts of the co-conspirators admissible in evidence, or he may prove the acts of the different persons, and thus prove the conspiracy; therefore, in a case of high treason, where it appeared that a party had met, which was joined by the prisoner on the next day, the counsel for the prosecution was allowed to ask what directions one of the party gave on the day of their meeting, as to where they were to go, and for what purpose. Reg. v. Frost, 9 C. & P. 149-Tindal, Parke, and Wil liams. Evidence had been given for the prosecution, that an armed party had attacked the W. hotel, in which the magistrates and troops were stationed. To shew that the intention of the party was not treasonable, but was merely to procure the release of certain prisoners, a witness was called to prove, that, on the party arriving at the hotel gate, they were asked by a special constable what they wanted, when one of them answered, "Surrender up your prisoners." It was proposed to call evidence in reply, that that was not said at the hotel gate :Held, that this was properly evidence in reply. Ib. 159. An alien was indicted for high treason, in compassing to depose the Queen, and in levying war against the Queen. The material overt acts of compassing to depose the Queen were-ist, conspiring at Dublin, to |