Page images
PDF
EPUB

was to prevent habitual drunkenness in a place during the hours of Divine Service, but that it does not extend to persons who are away from the place where their homes are, and who may, therefore, require some refreshments at an inn. What can an innkeeper do when a stranger comes to his house and asks admission? if he does not know him to be an inhabitant of the place, can he do more than ask him whether he is a traveller? If he were to refuse admission to a person who should be held to be a traveller, he would be liable to an indictment-The King v. Ivens (1).

[CROWDER, J.-How is a publican to know whether a person is a traveller or not?]

He has no means when such person is a stranger. It is very difficult to say what is a traveller. In Sandiman v. Breach (2) it was assumed, that a stage-coach which went from Clapton to London travelled that distance.

[COCKBURN, C.J.-Travelling does not depend upon the distance a person goes.]

The dictionaries vary as to the definition of "traveller." In the Imperial Dictionary, by Ogilvie, "travel" is said to be "to walk, to go or march on foot, to pass, to journey over,-a passing on foot, a walking-journey-a passing or riding from place to place"; and "traveller" is defined as 66 one who travels in any way." Welsby, for the respondent.-Who is a traveller within the meaning of this exception is a question of fact for the Justices in each case to determine. It is evident, however, that they are desirous of having the opinion of the Court to serve them as some guidance for the future. The addition of "bona fide" to a traveller in the prior act did not carry the meaning any further; in all cases it must be, whether the person is really a traveller, and it makes no matter whether the innkeeper believed the person to be a traveller, as the exception will only apply if he was, in fact, a traveller. Looking, then, at the facts in this case, it must surely be considered that these persons, who had gone out for pleasure only, were not travellers within the meaning of the act.

[CROWDER, J.-Is a person the less a
(1) 7 Car. & P. 213.
(2) 7 B. & C. 96.

traveller because he is a traveller for pleasure? COCKBURN, C.J.-If a person went round to different places on business with his bag, would he not be a traveller? So would he not also be a traveller if he went without his bag. Does his going the same round for pleasure prevent his being a traveller within the meaning of this exception ?]

It comes to this, then, that it must be a matter of fact in each case for the determination of the Magistrates.

[CROWDER, J.-I think that is so; but, on these facts, I think the Justices might hold these persons to be travellers. COCKBURN, C.J. Yes; on these facts the Justices should not, I think, have convicted the appellant. As the legislature has thought proper to use a word of the most ambiguous meaning, I do not consider that we are called upon to explain it, except with reference to each particular case. All we say, therefore, is that we do not think that this case is within the act.]

In Richardson's Dictionary "travel" is defined thus,-"to go or pass a wearisome length of way; to take or make a toilsome or laborious journey; to journey; to go or pass (on foot or in carriage) along the way, the road, through a country, over the sea."

[COCKBURN, C.J.-But under the present acceptation of the term a man may travel for pleasure.]

[blocks in formation]

will give you a penny if you will go and get J. B.'s money. The boy innocently went to the pay-table and said to the treasurer, I am come for J. B.'s money, and J. B.'s wages were given him. He took the money to the prisoner, who was waiting outside, and who gave the boy the promised penny :—Held, that the prisoner could not be convicted on the charge of obtaining the money from the treasurer, by falsely pretending to the treasurer that he, the prisoner, had authority from J. B. to receive his money, or of obtaining it, from the treasurer and the boy, by falsely pretending to the boy that he had such authority, or of obtaining it from the boy by the like false pretence to the boy; but that he might have been convicted on a count charging him with obtaining it from the treasurer, by falsely pretending to the treasurer that the boy had the authority from J. B. to receive the amount.

This case was stated, by the chairman, on the trial of the prisoner, at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county of Kent, holden at St. Augustine's, near Canterbury, on the 6th of April 1858.

William Butcher was tried upon the following indictment :-Kent, to wit.The jurors for our Lady the Queen, on their oath, present that William Butcher, on the 22nd of January, in the year of our Lord 1858, unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did falsely pretend to one James Holden, the treasurer and servant of a certain incorporated company, called the Company of Free Fishers and Dredgers, of Whitstable, in the said county, that the said William Butcher was the agent of two persons named James Butcher the elder and James Butcher the younger, of Whitstable aforesaid, which two persons were commonly known by the name of the Jim Butchers; and that he, the said William Butcher, was then sent by the said James Butcher the elder and James Butcher the younger, otherwise "the two Jim Butchers," to the pay-table of the Company of Free Fishers and Dredgers, of Whitstable aforesaid, to receive certain monies then payable by the said company to the said James Butcher the elder and James Butcher the younger, otherwise the two Jim Butchers; and that he was then authorized to receive such monies for

and on behalf of the said James Butcher the elder and James Butcher the younger, otherwise the two Jim Butchers, by means of which said false pretence the said William Butcher did then unlawfully obtain from the said James Holden the sum of 21. 3s. of the monies of the said company, with intent thereby to defraud." The count then negatived the false pretence. The second count stated, "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that William Butcher, on the 22nd of January, in the year of our Lord 1858, unlawfully, knowingly and designedly did falsely pretend to one William Butler that he, the said William Butcher, was authorized to send him, the said William Butler, to the paytable of the said Company of Free Fishers and Dredgers, of Whitstable, to get the pay-table money of the aforesaid James Butcher the elder and James Butcher the younger, otherwise the two Jim Butchers, and did then unlawfully obtain from the said James Holden, then being the treasurer of the Company of Free Fishers and Dredgers, of Whitstable, as aforesaid, and from the said William Butler the sum of 21. 3s. of the monies of the said company, with intent thereby then to defraud." then negatived the false pretence. The third count was, "And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that, on the 22nd of January, in the year of our Lord 1858, the said William Butcher knowingly did falsely pretend to the said William Butler that he, the said William Butcher, was the agent of the said James Butcher the elder and the said James Butcher the younger, commonly known by the name of the Jim Butchers; and that he, the said William Butcher, was then sent by the said James Butcher the elder and the said James Butcher the younger, otherwise the two Jim Butchers, to the pay-table of the company aforesaid to receive certain monies then payable by the said company to the said James Butcher the elder and James Butcher the younger, otherwise the two Jim Butchers; and that he was then authorized to receive such monies for and on behalf of the said James Butcher the elder and James Butcher the younger, otherwise the two Jim Butchers, by means of which

It

false pretences the said William Butcher did then unlawfully obtain from the said William Butler the sum of 21. 3s. of the monies of the said William Butler, with intent to defraud." It then negatived the false pretence as before.

The substance of the evidence for the prosecution was as follows:-John Hammond Nicholls stated, that he was foreman of the Incorporated Company of Free Fishers and Dredgers, of Whitstable; that the affairs of the company are managed by the foreman and jury, and by a treasurer; that the members of the company are freemen, and are employed under the supervision of the foreman in working upon the oyster-grounds of the company, and are paid for their work by the treasurer; and that the treasurer of the company is James Holden; and that the witness and James Holden met at a public-house in Whitstable Street, called the Duke of Cumberland, on Friday the 22nd of January 1858, at the pay-table for the purpose of paying the freemen for their work; that the defendant William Butcher is a freeman of the company, and was then entitled to receive and come to the pay-table, and did receive his pay of 14s. between five and six o'clock in the evening of the said 22nd of January; that among the freemen of the said company are two persons, father and son, of the name of James Butcher, who go by the name of "the two Jim Butchers," and the money which becomes due to them is commonly called "the two Jim Butchers' money"; that between six and seven o'clock of the same Friday evening a little boy came to the pay-table after the defendant William Butcher had received his money, and said, "I want the two Jim Butchers' money"; that the sum of 21. 3s. was due to the two James Butchers; that witness told Holden, the treasurer, to pay the money to the boy; that the freemen frequently send their boys and girls for their money; that afterwards James Butcher the father came and then James Butcher the son came for their money.

William Butler, a boy ten years of age, stated that he knew the defendant William Butcher; that he (the witness) and another boy were playing together in the street of Whitstable, on Friday the 22nd of

January last, near the Duke of Cumberland public-house; that the defendant came to them and said, "Which of you boys wants to earn a penny"; that witness replied, "I do"; that the defendant then said to witness, "Go to the pay-table and fetch the two Jim Butchers' money"; that witness accordingly went to the pay-table at the Duke of Cumberland public-house, where Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Holden were, and asked for the two Jim Butchers' paytable money; that he received 21. 3s. and went back to the street, where the defendant was waiting, and gave him the money, and received from him a penny.

On cross-examination witness said, he went and received the money, and afterwards gave it to the defendant because he had promised him the penny for doing so.

James Holden stated that he was treasurer of the company. That on Friday the 22nd of January he was at the paytable with John Hammond Nicholls, the foreman of the company; that a little boy, the witness last examined, came and asked for the two Jim Butchers' pay-table money; that he paid 21. 3s. to the boy; that the money so paid to the boy was the money of the company; that he parted with the money because the boy came and said he wanted the two Jim Butchers' money, and that he should not have parted with it without; that Nicholls, the foreman, goes on the oyster-grounds, knows what work has been done by the freemen, and what each has earned and is to receive; that Nicholls specified the amount, and told him what he was to pay, and that he should not have parted with the money if the little boy had not said he was sent for it, and if he had not believed that the boy was authorized by the two Butchers to receive it.

The defendant's name was never mentioned in the transaction.

James Butcher the father and James Butcher the son respectively proved that they were commonly known as the two Jim Butchers; that they did not authorize either the defendant William Butcher or the boy William Butler to receive their money from the company, and did not send any one for it on the said Friday evening.

It did not appear that either the foreman or the treasurer of the company knew the name of the little boy or who he was at the time the treasurer paid him the money.

I stated to the jury that if they were of opinion that the defendant was guilty of obtaining money by false pretences upon the facts proved, the question of law would be reserved for the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The jury found the defendant guilty. The judgment was respited, and the defendant was admitted to bail to appear and receive sentence at the next Court of Quarter Sessions.

The question for the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal was, whether the facts proved were sufficient to support either the first, second, or third count of the indictment.

No counsel appeared for the prisoner. Addison, for the prosecution.-By the words he used the prisoner assumed to have authority from the two James Butchers to go and get their money.

[COCKBURN, C.J.-He does not say he is authorized to receive it.]

He says so by his conduct, just as much as a person who puts on the cap and gown of an Oxford student falsely pretends that he holds that position in the University, oras one who draws a cheque on a banker with whom he has no account falsely pretends that he has. The boy was the prisoner's innocent agent to get the money. It is just the same as if the prisoner had gone and asked for the money himself. Therefore, the first count, which alleges that the prisoner falsely pretended that he was authorized to receive the money, is supported. The second count, that he falsely pretended to the boy, and so obtained the money from the treasurer and the boy, is also made out by the evidence. If, by a pretence to A, you obtain the money from B, the crime of obtaining money by false pretences is completed-The Commonwealth v. Harley (1), The Commonwealth v. Call (2), The King v. Wilkin (3), The Queen v. Moland (4). Further, the third count is made out, that the prisoner obtained

(1) 7 Metcalfe (American) 462.
(2) 21 Pick. (American) 523.
(3) 1 Leach, C.C. 520.

(4) 2 Mood. C.C. 276.

NEW SERIES, XXVIII.-MAG. CAS.

the money from the boy by a false pre

tence.

[COCKBURN, C.J.-No; he got it from the boy by giving him a penny.]

The boy had the possession of it, and believed the prisoner had authority to receive it.

COCKBURN, C.J.-I quite agree that the prisoner was guilty of obtaining the money by false pretences, but it is clear to me that the pretence upon which the money was obtained is not alleged in any of the three counts. In each of them the pretence is that the prisoner alleged himself as authorized to receive the money. The prisoner, by putting in motion an innocent agent, is, no doubt, responsible for any representation made by the agent within the limit of his instructions; but that principle does not meet the difficulty I feel on the ground that the pretence is not truly stated. The prisoner told the boy to go and get the Jim Butchers' money, and the boy went and said "I have come for the Jim Butchers' money." I think that amounts to a representation by the boy that he was. authorized to receive it; and the prisoner is as much responsible as if he had gone to the pay-table and said to the treasurer the boy was authorized to receive the money. The treasurer parted with his money on the representation that the boy had authority to receive the money, not that the prisoner had the authority. I think the prisoner might have been convicted on a count alleging that he represented that the boy had the authority to receive it; but, as there is no such count in this indictment, the conviction cannot be supported.

WIGHTMAN, J. and WILLES, J. con

curred.

WILLIAMS, J.-I am of the same opinion. There is no evidence to support the count, which alleges that the prisoner pretended to the treasurer that he was authorized to receive the money. The pretence to the treasurer was, that the boy was authorized. Nor can the conviction be sustained on the third count, which states that the prisoner obtained the money from the boy by a false pretence to him. His false pretence induced the boy to go for the money, but he got it from the boy

D

without any pretence. At one time I thought that the second count, which avers that the prisoner made pretence to the boy and obtained the money from the treasurer, was supportable on the authority of The Queen v. Brown (5), which shews that it is not necessary that the pretence should be made to the person from whom the money is obtained if it is made to operate on his mind. But the pretence to the boy was not the same pretence that operated on the treasurer's mind. The

pretence to the boy was, that the prisoner was authorized to receive the money. The pretence to the treasurer was, that the boy had the authority.

CHANNELL, B.-I also think that there is no count supported by the evidence. Conviction quashed.

[blocks in formation]

Settlement-Parish Apprentice-Order

of Justices-Presumption—Secondary Evidence-56 Geo. 3. c. 139.

Upon a question whether G. W. had acquired a settlement by service as a parish apprentice to P, it was proved that in 1824 he and his father were taken by the overseers before the Justices; that P. and the overseers were there; that papers were drawn up; that the Justices asked the father whether he had any objection to his son being bound apprentice to P; that G. W. went the next day to P, and that he remained with him two or three years. It also appeared from the register-book that one G. P. W. had, in 1824, been bound apprentice to P. The Sessions from these facts inferred that G. W. had been duly bound a parish apprentice to P:-Held, that they were right in drawing such an inference.

Upon an appeal against an order of two Justices for the removal of Sarah Wakeham and her five children from the parish of East Stonehouse, to the parish of Broadhempston, the Sessions confirmed the said order, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench upon the following

(5) 2 Cox, C.C. 348.

CASE.

The material ground of removal was, that George Wakeham was in the year 1825, being then aged about ten years, bound, by indenture, by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Blackawton, in the county of Devon, an apprentice to one Mr. Partridge, of Lower Westree, in the said parish, farmer, to serve him till he attained the age of twenty-one; that he served the said Mr. Partridge as such apprentice under the said indenture about twelve months, and then removed with the said Mr. Partridge into the parish of Broadhempston, where he continued to serve and live with the said Mr. Partridge, under the said indenture, for more than twelve months. The only material ground of appeal was, that George Wakeham was not duly bound a parish apprentice by indenture, as stated in the above ground of removal.

The following was all the evidence on this point-Philip Wakeham said, "I am George Wakeham's father. I had some conversation with him in 1824 about his being apprenticed to Mr. Partridge, and also with Mr. Partridge on the same subject. I went to Morley with him to be bound apprentice. I took him before the Magistrates. The overseers were there. He was about nine. He is now forty-three. I knew the gentlemen there were Magistrates. I saw Mr. Partridge. The Magistrates asked me if I had any objection to my son being bound apprentice to Mr. Partridge. I said no. I don't know anything else passed. I don't know what was done. I went down stairs and do not know anything more. I took my son up the next morning to Mr. Partridge. My son remained between two and three years with Mr. Partridge. My son left in consequence of Mr. Partridge's death. The overseers took me and my son before the Magistrates."

George Wakeham, the pauper, said: "I am the son of Philip Wakeham, the last witness. I had a conversation with Partridge about my being bound to him, and in consequence I had a conversation with my father in 1824, about my being apprenticed to Mr. Partridge. I remember going with my father to Morley to be bound apprentice. There were some Magistrates there. I recollect seeing papers drawn up. I went

« EelmineJätka »