If a man be stricken in one county and carried into another, Offences partly the indictment shall be found where the death happens. 2 East's in two counties. P.C. 343. If goods be stolen in one county and carried into another, it may be found in either. 7 G. 4. c. 64. Crime committed within boundary of county; By 7 G. 4. c. 64. § 12., where any felony or misdemeanor shall be committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within the distance of five hundred yards of any such boundary, or shall be begun in one county and completed in another, every such felony or misdemeanor may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, de- begun in one termined, and punished in any of the said counties, the same as if it had been actually and wholly committed therein. In bigamy, the indictment was found in Middlesex, and stated the first marriage to have taken place in the county of and the second marriage in the county of -; and at the conclusion it stated, "and the jurors aforesaid, &c. further say, that county, bad. she said J. J. F. was apprehended on the day of. at," leaving a blank for the place. Judgment being respited after conviction, the judges held unanimously that the indictment was bad, for the Middlesex grand jury upon the face of it had no jurisdiction. H. T. 1834, R. v. J. J. Fraser, cor. Arabin Serjt. O. B. Sept. Sess. 1833. MS. But a mistake of the place will not be material upon the evidence, on not guilty pleaded, if the fact be proved at some other place in the same county. 2 Haw. c. 25. § 84. And it is not sufficient that the county be expressed in the margent, but the vill where the offence was committed must be alleged to be in the county named in the margent, or in the county aforesaid, which seems to be sufficient where but one county is named before; but to be uncertain where a county is named in the body of the indictment different from that in the margent. 2 Hale, 180. 2 Haw. c. 25. § 34. In a case for riot, where two parishes had been named in the preceding part of the indictment, it proceeded to charge defendants with beginning to demolish, &c. a certain house, " situate in the parish aforesaid." An objection having been taken for this cause, it was held by Park J., after consulting with Gaselee J., that the parish aforesaid must relate to the last-mentioned parish, and sentence of death was recorded against the prisoner. West. Spr. Cir. 1832, R. v. Richards, 1 Mood. & Rob. 177. Anciently the fact must have been laid in some place whence a visne may come; and a visne may come from a ward, parish, hamlet, burgh, manor, castle, or even a forest, or other place known out of a town: but it cannot come from a thing incorporeal, and therefore not from a liberty. But see 7 G. 4. c. 64. § 20., suprà, p. 381. The place must be correctly stated, if the statute on which the indictment is framed gives the penalty to the poor of the parish where the crime was committed, for in such case the parish laid in the indictment must be proved. 2 Russ. 717. county, completed in another. Indictment, blank left for Within the county suffi cient, and variance not important. Parish aforesaid, held to re late to parish last mentioned. Place, where penalty goes to poor of parish. So, in a road indictment against a parish, the part of the road Road indictout of repair must be proved to be within the parish as laid in the ment. indictment. Ib. So, where offence is connected with a particular place, as in Offence, local. burglary, arson, &c., the place must be truly stated, so that the proof may correspond with it. (Partly so). Place laid which does not exist. But see next case. Non-existence of a place laid, can be taken advantage of only by plea in abatement. Burning a stack not a local offence. London too general. Mere name of place not sufficient. So, where an injury is partly local, and partly transitory, and a precise local decription is given, a variance in proof of the place is fatal. 2 Russ. 717. In a case at Monmouth Sum. Ass. 1808, the prisoner's counsel proved that there was no such parish in the county of Monmouth as the parish of Saint Mary's laid in the indictment. It was contended, on the other side, that it is no longer necessary in such an indictment (a) to lay any parish, as the jury are to come from the body of the county. Lawrence J. said he would save the point for the opinion of the judges. The prisoner was acquitted on the merits. R. v. Phillips, 3 Campb. 77. R. v. Leadbeater, Staffordshire Sum. Ass, 1818. MS. The indictment charged the burglary and larceny to have been committed in the parish of Aldrewas, Com. Staff. Upon cross-examination of one of the witnesses for the prosecution, it appeared that that there was no such parish as Aldrewas within the county of Stafford, the parish in which the offence was committed being Alrewas.-Garrow B. held the indictment insufficient, and directed an acquittal, upon the authority of a case reserved from the western circuit, and cited by Campbell (Amicus Curia), in which the judges held (notwithstanding the doubt expressed by Lawrence J. in R. v. Phillips, suprà), that it is necessary in every indictment to state a parish or vill within the county, and that upon proof that there is no such parish within the county as is laid in the indictment, the prisoner must be acquitted. It is no objection on not guilty that there is no such place in the county as that in which the offence is stated to have been committed. H. T. 1832. In an indictment for setting fire to a stack of pulse, a mistake as to the place where the offence was committed is immaterial: the charge is transitory, not local. H. T. 1832. One count in an indictment stated, that the prisoner, at the parish of Normanton-in-the-Woulds, in the county of N., maliciously, &c. did set fire to a certain stack of beans of J. S.: on not guilty pleaded, it appeared there was no such parish, and two points saved: one, whether the offence was local; the other, whether, there being no such parish, was an objection on not guilty; and the judges (Ld. Lyndhurst and Bolland B. absent) were unanimous that the offence had nothing of locality in it, and that there being no such place in the county can only be taken advantage of on a plea in abatement, and conviction right. H. T. 1832, R. v. Woodward, MS. Bayley B. S. C. 1 M. 323. See also S. P., R. v. Dowling and another, being a case of highway robbery, cited 2 Russ. 717. If the offence be laid in London generally, it will be too general, because of its largeness: there must be some parish stated, with some addition, (as St. Mary, Wood Street,) but the ward need not be stated, because a ward is in London as a hundred is in a county, and the hundred need not be stated. 2 Haw. c. 23. § 92. Sid. 325. Mackalley's case, 9 Rep. 66. b. The mere name of the place alone without the description will be bad as" late of W. in the county of B. with force and arms at the parish aforesaid" is bad: W. not having been described as (a) 43 G. 3. c. 58. (Ld. Ellenborough's Act), now repealed. a parish; and no other parish having been before laid. Matthew, 5 T. R. 162. It is stated above, that the offence must be proved to have been committed at some place within the county alleged in the indictment; but in the particular case of an offence being committed during a journey or passage, a certain degree of latitude is allowed by the following enactment: Offences to persons or property in or upon coaches, &c. employed on journies, or vessels in inland naviga tried in any tion, may be county By 7 G. 4. c. 64. § 13., where any felony or misdemeanor shall be committed on any person, or on or in respect of any property in or upon any coach, waggon, cart, or other carriage whatever, employed in any journey, or shall be committed on any person, or on or in respect of any property on board any vessel whatever employed on any voyage or journey upon any navigable river, canal, or inland navigation, such felony or misdemeanor may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in any county, through any part whereof such coach, waggon, cart, carriage, or vessel shall have passed in the course of the journey or voyage through which during which such felony or misdemeanor shall have been com- the coach, &c. mitted, in the same manner as if it had been actually committed or vessel has in such county; and in all cases where the side, centre, or other passed; part of any highway, or the side, bank, centre, or other part of any or, if the sides, such river, canal, or navigation, shall constitute the boundary of road, &c. are in any two counties, such felony or misdemeanor may be dealt with, different couninquired of, tried, determined, and punished in either of the said ties, may be counties through, or adjoining to, or by the boundary of any part tried in either. whereof such coach, waggon, cart, carriage, or vessel shall have passed in the course of the journey or voyage during which such felony or misdemeanor shall have been committed, in the same manner as if it had been actually committed in such county. &c. of a canal, the borders of counties, So, where an offence is committed near the boundary of a county, A felony or or begun in one county and completed in another, the stat. 7 G. 4. misdemeanor c. 64. § 12. enacts, that where any felony or misdemeanor shall committed on be committed on the boundary or boundaries of two or more counties, or within the distance of five hundred yards of any such boundary or boundaries, or shall be begun in one county and completed in another, every such felony or misdemeanor may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished, in any of the said counties, in the same manner as if it had been actually and wholly committed therein. It has been held, that the provisions of § 12., as to boundaries of counties, apply only to county trials at the assizes or sessions, and not to trials before courts of limited jurisdiction. The prisoner was brought to trial before the sessions for the Town and Borough of Southwark, but it appeared the crime was committed in London, though within five hundred yards of Surrey and the Southwark jurisdiction: it was adjudged, that this case did not fall within the statute, and that the prisoner was properly acquitted. R. v. Welsh, 1 R. & M. 175. IX. (5.) The Description of the Indictor, or other or begun in one county and completed in tried in either. another, to be In and upon one George Harrison.] Wherever the person injured Name of person is known to the jurors, his name ought to be put in the indictment. injured. 2 Haw. c. 25. § 71. But if they know not his name, an indictment for the murder of a person unknown, or for stealing the goods of a person unknown, is good. 2 Hale, 181. See R. v. Robinson, post, p. 388. Prisoner was convicted on an indictment for the murder of a certain female child whose name is to the jurors unknown." It appeared that prisoner was delivered of an illegitimate child at her lodgings without any secrecy, and when the child was twelve days old she carried it away, and drowned it by throwing it into a canal. The child had not been baptised. It appeared, that during her confinement she had more than once called the child " Mary Anne," and also "little Mary," and had said that she should like it to be named Mary Anne. The prisoner's master (who was the father) was stated to be a Baptist. An objection was taken, that the child had acquired a name by reputation, and therefore that the indictment was not proved; and R. v. Walker, 3 Camp. 264. R. v. Clarke, C. C. R. 358., and R. v. Sheen, 2 C. & P., were cited. Judgment being respited, and a case reserved, the judges held unanimously that the indictment was proved, and the conviction right. M. T. 1833, R. v. Mary Smith, cor. Gurney B., Stafford Sum. Ass. 1833. MS. Also, there is no need of an addition of the person upon whom the offence is committed, unless there be a plurality of persons of the same name; neither then is it essential to the indictment, though sometimes it may be convenient for distinction sake to add it. 2 Hale, 182. On an indictment for assaulting A., if there are two persons, father and son, named A., and the assault is upon the son, it need not be stated in the indictment that the assault was upon A. the younger. Indictment for assaulting Elizabeth Edwards. It appeared that there were mother and daughter of that name, and that the assault was upon the daughter: it was urged that the description Elizabeth Edwards, without addition, applied only to the mother; but Holroyd J. at the trial, and the court of K. B. afterwards, thought otherwise, and defendant was convicted and sentenced. R. v. Peace, 3 B. & A. 579. Adding a false description to the name of a person who must be named is fatal, though it were not necessary to give him any description. E. T. 1831. In bigamy, the second wife was called Elizabeth Chant, widow; she was in fact and by reputation a spinster, and the judges held this misdescription fatal, though it was not necessary to have stated more than her name. E. T. 1831, R. v. Deeley, MS. Bayley B. S. C. 1 M. 303. By 7 G. 4. c. 64. § 20., the designation of any person mentioned in the indictment or information by a name of office or other descriptive appellation, instead of their proper name, is not to be a ground for staying or reversing judgment after verdict or outlawry, or by confession, default, or otherwise. See post, p. 392. In the peace of God and of our said lord the king then and there being.] It is usual to allege this, but not necessary, and possibly not true, for he might be breaking the peace at the time. 2 Hale, 186. See tit. Larceny. IX. (6.) The Description of the Offence. The aforesaid George Harrison not having any weapon then drawn, Indictment on nor the aforesaid George Harrison having first stricken the said offence created John Armstrong.] An indictment grounded upon an offence made by statute must by act of parliament must by express words bring the offence be brought subwithin the substantial description made in the act of parliament, it. stantially within and those circumstances mentioned in the statute to make up the offence shall not be supplied by the general conclusion against the form of the statute. 2 Hale, 170. By 7 G. 4. c. 64. § 21., where a statute has created an offence, or increased the punishment, the indictment or information shall, after verdict, be held sufficient if it describe the offence in the words of the statute. But there is no necessity in an indictment on a public statute to recite such statute; for the judges are bound ex officio to take notice of all public statutes. 2 Haw. c. 25. § 100. Although the indictment need not recite a general penal statute, yet it must bring the fact within the express prohibition of the statute, otherwise the conclusion contra formam statuti, and the implication thereof, will not aid the indictment, but it will be insufficient. 2 Hale, 192. Yet, if the prosecutor take upon him to recite it, and materially vary from a substantial part of the purview of the statute, and conclude against the form of the statute aforesaid, he vitiates the indictment. 2 Haw. c. 25. § 100. Aliter, where the mistaken words may be rejected as surplusage. R. v. Haworth, 3 Stark. 27. antè, tit. Cheat. Also, it seems to be generally agreed, that a misrecital of the place or day at which the parliament was holden vitiates an indictment. 2 Haw. c. 25. § 104. And it hath been adjudged, that a misrecital of the title of a statute is fatal. 2 Haw. c. 25. § 101. Offence must be brought within the statute. Following words of statute sufficient after verdict. Statute need not be recited. Varying from the words of the statute, if recited, is fatal. exception, &c. There is no need to allege in an indictment that the defendant In indictment is not within the benefit of the provisoes of the statute; although not necessary the same may be necessary in a conviction; for since no plea can to negative an be admitted to a conviction, and the defendant can have no remedy in a proviso; against it, but from an exception to some defect appearing in the face of it, and all the proceedings are in a summary manner, it is but reasonable that such a conviction should have the highest certainty. 2 Haw. c. 25. § 113. 2 Hale, 170, 171. And even in a conviction, where the benefit is given by a proviso in the statute subsequent to the enacting clause, it is not necessary to negative the benefit. 2 Str. 1101. nor in convic tion, where the exception is on a subsequent clause. There are several words of art which the law hath appropriated for the description of the offence, which no circumlocution will sup- Feloniously. ply, as feloniously, in the indictment of any felony; burglariously, in an indictment of burglary; and the like. 2 Hale, 184. And if a man be indicted that he stole, and it is not said felo niously, this indictment imports but a trespass. 2 Hale, 172, With a certain sword drawn.] Yet if the party were killed Weapon. with another weapon, it maintains the indictment; but if it were with another kind of death, as poisoning or strangling, it doth not maintain the indictment upon evidence. 2 Hale, 185. |