Reg. v. Dunn, 11 Jur. 287-B. C. -Patteson. The court will not permit the venue in an indictment to be changed for any other cause than the inability to obtain a fair trial in the original jurisdiction. Reg. v. Patent Eurika and Sanitary Manure Company, 13 L. T., N. S. 365-Q. B. The court has no power to change the venue in a criminal case, nor will they order a suggestion to be entered on the roll to change the place of trial in an information for libel, on the ground of inconvenience and difficulty, in securing the attendance of the defendant's witnesses. Reg. v. Cavendish, 2 Cox, C. C. 176. The court will remove an indictment for a misdemeanor from one county to another, if there is reasonable cause to apprehend or suspect that justice will not be impartially administered in the former county. Rex v. Hunt, 3 B. & A. 444; 2 Chit. 130. It is no reason for changing the venue in an indictment for a conspiracy in destroying foxes and other noxious animals, that the gentry of the county in which the indictment was found is addicted to foxhunting. Rex v. King, 2 Chit. 217. Evidence of partiality must be extremely strong to induce the court to change the venue in a criminal information. Rex v. Harris, 3 Burr. 1330; 1 W. Bl. 378. In felony, the court refused to allow the defendant to enter a suggestion for changing the venue, on the ground of prejudice pervading the county. Rex v. Penpraze, 1 N. & M. 312; 4 B. & Ad. 573. not be exercised unless it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of securing an impartial trial. Rex v. Holden, 2 N. & M. 167; 5 B. & Ad. 347. Where a defendant is in custody in the county of A., upon an attachment issuing out of the Court of Exchequer, he may be removed to the county of B., to take his trial upon an indictment found in the latter county. In re Wetton, 1 C. & J. 459. (j) Caption. The caption of an indictment must shew that the court where it was found had jurisdiction. Rez v. Fearnley, 1 Leach, C. C. 425. An indictment beginning "The jurors of our lady the Queen," is not bad in arrest of judgment. The words, "of our lady the Queen," may be rejected as surplusage, the jurors intended being those mentioned in the caption. Reg. v. Turner, 2 M. & Rob. 214 -Parke. See Broome v. Reg. (in error), 12 Q. B. 834; 12 Jur. 538; 17 L. J., M. C. 152. In a nisi prius record of an indictment removed by certiorari, the names of the grand jurors who found the indictment need not be inserted in the caption. Rex v. Davis, 1 C. & P. 470-Park. It is not necessary to specify the names of the grand jury in the record of the caption of an indietment; it is enough to aver that the indictment was found by twelve good and lawful men, for the party indicted has an opportunity of resorting to the original caption, where the names of the jurors ap pear. Aylett v. Rex (in error), 3 Bro. P. C. 529; 6 A. & E. 247, n. The court has a discretionary The caption of an indictment on power of ordering a suggestion to which a defendant had been conbe entered on the record of an in-victed was drawn up by the clerk dictment for felony, removed thither by certiorari, for the purpose of awarding the jury process into a foreign county; but this power will of the peace from the minutes of sessions, and returned with the indictment to the crown officer. It stated the presentment to be made by the oaths of A., B., C., D. (nam- | S, 635; 12 W. R. 908; 10 L. T., ing twelve grand jurors), and oth-N. S. 571. ers, good and lawful men. A rule Where, therefore, it appeared by was obtained (with a view to a the record, that the defendants court of error), calling on the clerk pleaded not guilty generally to an of the peace to shew cause why the indictment containing two counts, caption should not be amended by and that the jury found a verdict inserting the true names and num- of guilty upon the one count, but it ber of the grand jury sworn. Proof did not appear that they found any was given by affidavit, that the real verdict upon the other :-Held, that number exceeded twenty-five. The the conviction and judgment upon clerk did not deny this, but stated the one were, nevertheless, good. that he had no minute or recollec- Ib. tion of the names or number:Held, that the caption was not incorrect in omitting to state the number and all the names of the grand jury; and that, under these circumstances, no alteration could be made in it, and the defendant received judgment. Rex v. Marsh, 6 A. & E. 236; 1 N. & P. 187; 2 H. & W. 366. Semble, per Patteson, J., that an indictment which omits to describe the jurors as jurors of the county is bad. Whitehead v. Reg. (in error), 7 Q. B. 582; 9 Jur. 594; 14 L. J., M. C. 165. A prisoner was arraigned upon an indictment, containing one count for felony and one for misdemeanor; and, having pleaded not guilty, was duly tried and convicted of felony : -Held, that the misjoinder was no objection to the conviction. Reg. v. Ferguson, 6 Cox, C. C. 454; 24 L. J., M. C. 61. Adding.]- Where the counsel for the prosecution has obtained leave to add a count, on the ground that the indictment, as framed, will not enable him to disclose all the facts of the transaction, the defendant cannot claim to be tried at once upon the indictment already preferred, and the trial must be postponed. Reg. v. Stone, 1 F. & F. 310-Bramwell. (1) As to the Allegations. A caption stating that an indictment was found at the sessions holden at Warwick, in and for the county of Warwick, and by adjournment thence at Coventry, in and for the same county, upon the oath of A. B., &c., good and lawful men of the county then and there By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24, sworn to inquire for the body of no indictment for any offence shall the county, is a sufficient caption "be held insufficient for want of the under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 110, an- "averment of any matter unnecesnexing the county of the city of sary to be proved, nor for the Coventry to Warwickshire. Hol-" omission of the words 'as appears loway v. Reg. (in error), 17 Q. B." by the record,' or of the words 319; 2 Den. C. C. 287; 15 Jur. "with force and arms,' nor for 825. "want of a proper or formal conclusion, nor for want of or imper"fection in the addition of any de"fendant." (k) Several Counts. Validity.]-Each count in an indictment is, to all intents and purposes, a separate indictment in itself. Latham v. Reg. (in error), 9 Cox, C. C. 516; 10 Jur., N. S. 1145; 33 L. J., M. C. 197; 5 B. & If an indictment is in itself good, tautologous words will be rejected as surplusage. Rex v. Morris, 1 Leach, C. C. 109. A bad indictment may be made good by rejecting as insensible and useless such words as obstruct the the sense of it. Rex v. Redman, 1 Leach, C. C. 477. A statement in an indictment may be either according to the fact or the legal operation. Reg. v. Healey, 1 M. C. C. 1. The words " as follow, that is to say," when introductory to a recital in an indictment, do not bind the party to an exact and a verbatim recital. Rex v. Hart, 1 Leach, C. C. 145; 2 East, P. C. 978; 1 Dougl. 193; Cowp. 229; S. P., Rex v. May, 1 Leach, C. C. 192. Where an evil intent, accompanying an act, is necessary to constitute such act a crime, the intent must be alleged in the indictment, and proved; though it is insufficient to allege it in the prefatory part of the indictment. But where the act is in itself unlawful, the law infers an evil intent, and the allegation of such intent is merely matter of form, and need not be proved by extrinsic evidence on the part of the prosecutor. Rex v. Phillips, 6 East, 464; 2 Smith, 550. An indictment, which may apply to either of two different definite of fences, is bad. Rex v Marshall, 1 M. C. C. 158. cording as the context and subjectmatter require it to be, in order to make the whole consistent and sensible. The word "until” may therefore be construed either exclusive or inclusive of the day to which it is applied, according to the context and subject-matter. Rex v. Stevens, 5 East, 244; 1 Smith, 437. After verdict defective averments in a second count of an indictment may be cured by reference to sufficient averments in the first count. Reg. v. Waverton, 2 Den. C. C. 340 ; 17 Q. B. 562; 16 Jur. 16; 21 L. J., M. C. 7. An indictment, ungrammatical, is not bad if the real meaning is suf ficiently expressed. Reg. v. Stokes, 1 Den. C. C. 307. An indictment charging that defendant made an assault on Henry B., " and him the said William B. did beat, and other wrongs to the said William B. did the damage of the said William B.," is insufficient. Reg. v. Crespin, 11 Q. B. 913; 12 Jur. 433; 17 L. J., M. C. 128. Since 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24, an indictment for a public nuisance needs not conclude ad commune nocumentum. Reg. v. Holmes, Dears, C. C. 207; 17 Jur. 562; 22 L. J., M. C. 122. If an indictment has an interlineation, and has a caret at the proper Semble, when the title of an act place, where the interlined words is not correctly set out in an indictare to come in, the court will take ment, but the variation from the notice of the caret, and read the in-true title is so small that the court dictment correctly. Rex v. Davis, 7 C. & P. 319-Patteson. Every indictment must contain a complete description of such facts and circumstances as constitute the crime, without inconsistency or repugnancy. But, except in certain cases, where technical expressions having grown by long use into law are required to be used, the same sense is to be put on the words of an indictment which they bear in ordinary acceptation; and if the sense of any word is in ordinary acceptation ambiguous, it will be construed ac can have no doubt what statute is referred to by the title indicated, no objection can be sustained to the sufficiency of the indictment on account of the variance. Reg. v. Westley, Bell, C. C. 193; 29 L. J., M. C. 35; 5 Jur., N. S. 1362. In felonies the indictment must allege them to have been done feloniously; and, therefore, where a statute creates a felony, it is not sufficient to charge the offender merely in the terms of the statute. Reg. v. Gray, L. & C. 365; 9 Cox, C. C. 417; 10 Jur., N. S. 160; 33 L. J., M. C. 78; 12 W. R. 350; 9(m) Description of the Party acL. T., N. S. 733. cused. " A prisoner was indicted under By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 15, with hav-"no indictment for any offence shall ing unlawfully and maliciously" be held insufficient for want of or damaged, with intent to destroy, "imperfection in the addition of any certain machines; the word" felon-"defendant.” iously" being omitted, the indict- If the name of a prisoner is un ment is bad. Ib. known, and he refuses to disclose An indictment alleging that a cause came on to be heard and was duly tried by a jury," is sufficient, although no verdict was given, the trial ending in a nonsuit. Reg. v. Bray, 9 Cox, C. C. 218-cient. Gurney, Recorder. An indictment, alleging that the defendant "did unlawfully obtain from the said C. C. a cheque for the sum of 81. 14s. 6d. of the monies of the said W. W.," is a sufficient allegation of the ownership of the cheque. Reg. v. Godfrey, Dears. & B. C. C. 426; 4 Jur., N. S. 146; 27 L. J., M. C. 151. An indictment charging D. L. as a receiver of stolen goods, "he, the said A. B., well knowing them to have been feloniously stolen," is, in arrest of judgment, a bad indictment, and is not capable of being amended. Reg. v. Larkin, 2 C. L. R. 775; Dears. C. C. 365; 6 Cox, C. C. 377; 18 Jur. 539; 23 L. J., M. C. 125. A. was charged in one count with stealing goods, and in a second count with receiving the same goods "so as aforesaid feloniously stolen." He was convicted on the second count :-Held, that the conviction was good. Reg. v. Huntley, Bell, C. C. 238; 8 Cox, C. C. 260; 6 Jur., N. S. 80; 29 L. J., M. C. 170; 8 W. R. 183; 1 L. T., N. S. 384. 489. But an indictment against him as a person to the jurors unknown, without something to ascertain whom the grand jury meant to designate, is insufficient. Ib. An indictment against A. by the addition of " servant" was ill. Rex v. Checketts, 6 M. & S. 88. A woman charged with the murder of her husband was described as " A., the wife of J. O., late of the parish of S., in the county of W., labourer." The judge ordered this to be amended by striking out the word "wife" and inserting the word "widow." Reg. v. Orchard, 8 C. & P. 565-Abinger. The prosecutor was termed in the indictment J. N. B. esquire: it was proved that his name was J. N. B., but no evidence was given that he was an esquire :-Held, that the court would take notice that esquire was an addition, and not part of the name, and that it was immaterial that such addition should be proved as laid. Reg. v. Keys, 2 Cox, C. C. 225-Wilde. (n) Allegations of Time and Place. Duplicity in an indictment is no By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24, ground of error. Nash v. Reg. (in" no indictment for any offence shall error), 9 Cox, C. C. 424; 10 Jur., "be held insufficient for omitting N. S. 819; 33 L. J., M. C. 94; 4" to state the time at which the of B. & S. 935; 12 W. R. 421; 9 L. "fence was committed in any case T., N. S. 716. "where time is not of the essence FISH. DIG.-37. Where dates in an indictment are laid under a videlicet, the videlicet may be rejected after verdict in order to support the indictment. Ryalls v. Reg. (in error), 11 Q. B. 781; 13 Jur. 259; 18 L. J., M. C. 69-Exch. Cham. After verdict, to support an indictment, and to shew that the provisions of a statute have been complied with, dates laid under a videlicet will be taken to be true. Reg. v. Scott, 25 L. J., M. C. 128; Dears. & B. C. C. 47; 2 Jur., N. S. 1096. In an indictment for assault and battery, the only allegation of the year in which the offence was committed was "in the tenth year of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria" :-Held, that by 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 20, this was no ground of error. Broome v. Reg. (in error), 12 Q. B. 834; 12 Jur. 538; 17 L. J., M. C. 152-Exch. Cham. The objection that an offence was laid in an indictment to have been committed on a day which had not yet arrived, could only be taken advantage of on demurrer, and could not be taken after a plea of not guilty. Reg. v. Fenwick, 2 C. & K. 915; 4 Cox, C. C. 139Cresswell. was no such place in the county could only be taken advantage of by plea in abatement. Rex v. Woodward, 1 M. C. C. 323. In an indictment, alleging a dwelling-house to be "situate at the parish aforesaid," the parish last mentioned must be intended. Rex v. Richards, 1 M. & Rob. 177— Park. A house is properly described as in the parish of Birmingham, although for certain ecclesiastical purposes that parish is divided into three divisions, each called a parish. Reg. v. Howell, 9 C. & P. 437— Littledale. Where time and place are material, the time and place stated will be taken to be the true time and place. Rex v. Napper, 1 M. C. C. 44; S. P., Rex v. Brown, M. & M. 163. Where a statute makes an offence committed after a given day triable in the county where the party is apprehended, and authorizes laying it as if committed in that county, and does not vary the nature and character of the offence, it is no objection that the day laid in the indictment is before the day the statute mentions, if the offence was in fact committed after that day. Rex v. Treharne, 1 M. C. C. 298. Words of reference, as "there" and "said," in an indictment, will not be referred to the last antecedent, where the sense requires that they should be referred to some prior antecedent. Wright v. Rex (in error), 3 N. & M. 892. In an indictment for burglary, it is sufficient to allege that the burglary was committed at a place, naming it, e. g. "at Norton-juxtaKempsey, in the county aforesaid," without stating the place to be the parish, vill, chapelry, or the like." Reg. v. Brookes, Car. & M. 543— Patteson. It was no objection on the plea of not guilty that there was no such place in the county as that in which the offence was stated to have been committed, and the fact that there (0) Name of Party injured. In General.]-By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24, no indictment for "any offence shall be held insuffi"cient for that any person men"tioned in the indictment is desig"nated by a name of office, or other "descriptive appellation instead of "his proper name." A prosecutor may be described by a name he has assumed, although |