1. The prisoner was convicted on an
indictment under section 6 of 7
Wm. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85., for ad-
ministering and causing to be
taken by E. C. certain poison with
intent to procure her miscarriage.
It appeared that E. C. being preg-
nant applied to the prisoner to
get her something to procure mis-
carriage, and that the prisoner did
procure a drug which drug was
given by the prisoner to E. C.,
and taken by her with intent to
procure, and did in fact procure
miscarriage; but that the taking
by E. C. was not in the presence
of the prisoner. Held, that the
conviction was right, inasmuch as
there was a "causing to be taken"
within the meaning of the statute.
Regina v. Harriett Wilson,
2. The prisoner was convicted on an
indictment, under section 6 of 7
Wm. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85., contain-
ing several counts, for adminis-
tering and causing to be taken by
L. C. certain noxious drugs, with
intent to procure abortion.
appeared that the prisoner deli-
vered certain drugs to L. C. in
order that she might take them
with a view to produce abortion,
and told her where she could pro-
cure other drugs with the same
view. That the last mentioned
drugs were procured by L. C., and
afterwards made into pills by the
prisoner, and that L. C. did, for
the purpose aforesaid, take not
only the drugs so delivered to her
by the prisoner, but also the drugs
so procured by L. C. and made
into pills by the prisoner; and
that enough of each was taken to
be noxious; but it did not appear
that the prisoner was present when
any of the drugs were taken.
Held, that the conviction was
right, and that the case was not
distinguishable from Regina v.
Harriett Wilson, p. 127. Regina
v. Mary Ann Farrow,
164
Before the fact, see Regina v. Gaylor, Under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100., 113
ACCOUNTABLE RECEIPT.
See FORGERY (2).
ADULTERER.
See LARCENY (3).
AFFILIATION ORDER.
The prisoner was convicted on an
indictment for perjury on the
hearing of an affiliation summons.
The applicant for the summons
had returned from service to the
house of her parents to be con-
fined; and, after remaining there
for eight months, during which
time she had no other home, she
went to lodge at D. for the pur-
pose of affiliating her child. D. was
not in the same petty sessional
division as the residence of her
parents; but she went to D., not
fraudulently or for any improper
reason, but from motives of con-
venience; and after lodging at D.
for three weeks she applied for and
obtained the summons in the petty
sessional division in which D. was
situate. She stated that she meant
to leave D. immediately after the
order, and she did leave the day
after the order was made and went
into service without returning to
her parents. The jury found she
had no other home than D., and
that she was residing there if in
point of law she could, under the
circumstances, be considered to be
80. Held, that her residence was
at D., and therefore that, the
magistrates of the petty sessional
division in which D. was situate
having jurisdiction, the conviction
was right. Regina v. Richard
Hughes,
ANATOMY ACT.
The defendant was convicted on an
indictment charging him with dis-
posing of certain dead bodies for
the purpose of dissection. The
defendant, the master of a work-
house, was a person having lawful
possession of the bodies of deceased
paupers and under section 7 of
the Anatomy Act (2 & 3 Wm. 4.
c. 75.) it was lawful for him to per-
mit such bodies to undergo ana-
tomical examination, provided the
relatives did not require them to
be buried without such examina-
tion. For the purpose of pre-
venting the relatives from making
this requirement and leading them
to suppose that the bodies were
buried without dissection, the de-
fendant showed the bodies to the
relatives in coffins and caused the
appearance of a funeral to be gone
through. This fraud prevented
the relatives from making the re-
quirement, and the defendant, for
gain to himself, disposed of the
bodies for dissection. Held, that
the statutory requirement not hav-
ing in fact been made, the defend-
ant was justified in what he did
by the seventh section of the Ana-
tomy Act, and that the conviction
was wrong. Regina v. Alfred
Feist,
ARREST OF JUDGMENT.
Sufficiency of averment after ver-
dict on motion for arrest of judg-
ment,
47
The prisoners were convicted on an
indictment charging them with
unlawfully and maliciously setting
fire to a stack of grain. The stack
in question was of the flax-plant,
with the seed or grain in it, and Notes of a provincial bank not in
the jury found that the flax seed
is a grain. Held, that the stack
was a stack of grain within sect. 10
of 7 Wm. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 89.
Regina v. John Spencer and Mary
Davidson,
AUTREFOIS ACQUIT.
Prisoner was indicted for stealing a
pair of boots the property of A.,
and acquitted. She was then in-
dicted again for stealing the same
boots laid as the property of B.,
and pleaded autrefois acquit. It
appeared that A. was a boy 14
years of age living with and assist-
ing B., who was his father; that
the boots were the property of B.,
but that, at the time they were
stolen by the prisoner, A. had tem-
porarily in his father's absence the
charge of the stall from which they
were stolen. Held, 1. That A. was
not a bailee, and that the owner-
ship of the boots could not properly
be laid in him. 2. That the plea
of autrefois acquit could not be
sustained, notwithstanding the
power of amendment given by
14 & 15 Vict. c. 100. Regina v.
Green,
AWARD.
See PUBLIC ROAD.
See AUTREFOIS ACQUIT.
LARCENY (4), (10).
circulation for value, but in course
of transmission from one branch
bank to another, are properly
described as money,
109
1. A bankrupt upon an examination,
under section 117 of the Bank-
rupt Law Consolidation Act
(12 & 13 Vict. c. 106.), is bound
to answer all questions touching
matters relating to his trade deal-
tend
ings or estate, or which may
to disclose any secret grant, con-
veyance, or concealment of his
lands, tenements, goods, money,
or debts, although his answers
may_criminate himself; and (per
Lord CAMPBELL C. J., ALDERSON
B., WILLES J. and BRAMWELL
B.; COLERIDGE J. dissentiente,)
such answers may afterwards be
given in evidence against him
upon a criminal charge.
In an indictment against a bank-
rupt, under section 252 of the said
statute, for mutilating his books;
it was alleged that before and at
the time, &c., to wit, on the 23rd
November 1855, B. S. was a trader
liable to become bankrupt within
the meaning of the said Act, and
that he, for more than six months
next immediately preceding the
time of filing the petition for ad-
judication, &c., did reside and
carry on business as such trader
within the jurisdiction, &c.; and
that whilst he so resided, &c., to
wit, on the 23rd November 1855,
he filed with the registrar, &c., a
declaration that he was unable to
meet his engagements; and that
whilst he so resided, &c., to wit,
on the 23rd November 1855, he
did present his petition for adju-
dication. Held, after verdict, that
the averments in the indictment
1. The prisoner was convicted on an
indictment for bigamy.
It ap
peared that her first husband had
been continually absent from her
for seven years next preceding the
second marriage; on which occa-
sion she represented herself as a
single woman, and was married by
her maiden name. The jury, being
asked to consider whether she
knew her husband to be alive at
the time of the second marriage,
and, if not, whether she had the
means of acquiring the knowledge,
found that they had no evidence
of her knowledge, but were of
opinion that she had the means of
acquiring knowledge if she had
chosen to make use of them. Held,
that upon that finding the con-
viction could not be sustained.
Quare, whether the onus was
cast on the prosecution of proving
that the prisoner knew that her
husband was alive, or on the pri-
soner of proving that she did not
know it. Regina v. Briggs,
98
2. The prisoner was convicted on an
indictment for bigamy.
It was
alleged that the first marriage
took place in a Dissenter's chapel
duly licenced for marriages, and a
witness was called who proved that
he was present at the marriage;
that it took place in the dissenter's
chapel in the presence of the
registrar; that the entry of the
marriage in the registrar's book
was signed by the witness as a
witness to the marriage, and that
the parties afterwards lived toge-
ther as man and wife for some
years. Held, 1. That the parol
testimony of the witness suffi-
ciently proved the fact of mar-
riage. 2. That there was prima
facie evidence that the chapel was
duly registered, and was a place
in which marriages might legally
be solemnized.
A witness produced a certificate,
under the hand of the superin-
tendent registrar, of the fact that
the chapel had been duly regis-
tered. It did not purport to be a
copy or extract, but the witness
proved that he had examined it
with the register book at the office
of the superintendent registrar,
and that it was correct. Held,
per POLLOCK C. B. and WILLES
J., that the document was admis-
sible as an examined copy or
extract from the superintendent
registrar's book, under section
14 of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99., and was
therefore good evidence of the due
registration of the chapel. Regina
v. Henry Manwaring,
BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.
See Errata and Addenda.
BODILY INJURY.
See MURDER.
In an indictment under section 17
of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109., for winning
money at cards by fraud, unlawful
device and ill practice, it is not
necessary to state to whom the
money belonged.
Same case. Regina v. Bryan, 274 Proof of registration of,
|