consent carried away the bed, and placed it in a granary at a short distance, requesting the person, who gave him permission so to do, that the prosecutor should not be informed of it. W. H. Avery then returned to the prosecutor's house, and shortly after went away with the wife, W. H. Avery taking with him a basket containing property of the prosecutor. The wife left her husband's house without his knowledge or assent, and without the intention of returning. They went together to the house of H. Avery, the other prisoner, a distance of about three miles. The prosecutor was informed on the same Friday that his wife and goods were gone, and he went that evening with the constable to H. Avery's house. H. Avery was at home, and being asked, denied that he had any property of the prosecutor's, or anything in the house that was not his own; on which the house was searched, and a milk-jug of the prosecutor's was found in the bed-room, concealed between the bed and the sacking of the bed, and also in the same room, several other articles belonging to the prosecutor. In a room in an adjoining house where H. Avery had, by permission, placed some of the property, of which room he produced the key, after a denial by him that he had it, were found two boxes, containing wearing apparel, and the carpet, a counterpane and other things the property of the prosecutor. The boxes belonged to the prosecutor, and had the following address upon them, in the writing of W. H. Avery, "Henry Avery, to be left at the Rose Inn, Folkestone,' with the additional words, "by Sharwood," on one of them. The bed was found in the granary where the prisoner W. H. Avery had placed it. All the articles found in the prisoner H. Avery's house, as also those in the room of the adjoining house, and in the granary, were the prosecutor's property, and taken on one or another of the occasions mentioned. There was no evidence to shew that the wife remained at H. Avery's house, nor that she had committed adultery with either of the prisoners, or intended to do so. She was not called as a witness. It was contended by the counsel for the prisoners, that to make them guilty of felony there must be either an adultery committed, or an elope

ment by the wife with intent to live in adultery with one of them, or with somebody else, with their knowledge and assistance; and The King v. Harrison (1) was relied on. The jury found that the prisoners took the goods without the knowledge or consent of the husband, and with the intention to deprive him absolutely of his property in them. As it appears doubtful upon the authorities whether adultery committed or contemplated is necessary to constitute a felonious taking in cases of this nature, I directed a verdict of guilty to be entered, that the opinion of the Court for the consideration of Crown Cases Reserved might be taken upon the question, whether, upon the facts, the indictment was supported.

The prisoners were sentenced to six calendar months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and remain in prison.

I respectfully request the opinion of the Justices of either Bench and Barons of the Exchequer upon this case.

The case was not argued by counsel.

COCKBURN, C.J.-We are of opinion that this conviction cannot be sustained. It is clear that we must take it that there was neither any adultery between the prosecutor's wife and either of the prisoners, nor any intention to commit adultery. The property of the husband was taken with the consent and privity of the wife, who was then about to abandon her husband's roof for some cause not shewn. It is not necessary for us to lay down that, supposing a stranger stole the goods of the husband, and the wife was privy and consenting to the taking, such privity and consent would exonerate him from a charge of larceny if he had an animus furandi. There are, it is true, some old authorities to that effect. We do not say that we adopt that doctrine, but we leave it where it was. But it is clear that the wife cannot be guilty of larceny in taking her husband's goods; and if the stranger does no more than assist the wife, though her intent may have been wrongfully to deprive her husband of the goods, he cannot, in our opinion, be guilty of larceny. In this case it was not left to the jury whether the

(1) L. C.C. 47.

acts done were done by the prisoners as principals, the wife only approving and consenting; or whether they were taken by the wife, the prisoners merely assisting her. Assuming that there could have been a conviction for larceny if the prisoners had acted as principals, the fact that they were so, which is an essential element in the case, is not found by the jury either

way.
In the absence of such finding, we
must assume that that state of facts
existed which is most in favour of the
prisoners.

The rest of the Court concurred.
Conviction quashed.

Irremovability Residence in Extraparochial Place-Statutes 20 Vict. c. 19, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. s. 1.

A residence of five years in an extraparochial place, part of which residence was before the coming into operation of the 20 Vict. c. 19, does not confer the status of irremovability; that act having no retrospective operation.

This was an appeal against an order made by two Justices of the borough of Northampton, for the removal of Susannah Linnett and her six children from the parish of the Priory of St. Andrew, town part, to the parish of St. Sepulchre. The Court of Quarter Sessions of the said borough confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following

CASE.

Before and until the coming into operation of the 20 Vict. c. 19,' An act to provide for the relief of the poor in extraparochial places,' the parish of the Priory of St. Andrew, town part, was an extraparochial place, wherein no rate was levied for the relief of the poor. After the coming into operation of the said act, and in virtue thereof, the said extra - parochial place became a parish for the purposes of the said act, and was designated by the. tame of the parish of the Priory of St. Andrew, town part. The pauper, SusanNEW SERIES, XXVIII.-MAG. CAS.

nah Linnett, had resided in the said place for more than five years next before the application for the order and warrant of removal. The application was made on the 18th of June 1858, and the said place became a parish on the 1st of January preceding; previously to which day the said place was extra-parochial.

It was contended by the appellants, that the residence of the pauper for more than five years next before the 18th of June 1858, in the said place, rendered her and her children irremovable. If this Court should be of that opinion, then the orders to be quashed; but if of the contrary opinion, the orders to be confirmed.

Cockle, for the respondents.-The 20 Vict. c. 19. is conclusive in favour of the respondents. By the 1st section, all extraparochial places, where no poor-rate is levied, shall, after the 31st of December 1857, be deemed parishes for the purposes therein mentioned. The respondents' parish was one of those places, and the pauper's five years' residence was before the 18th of June 1858. There is nothing in the act to give it a retrospective operation. The Court then called onHannen, for the appellants. The 20 Vict. c. 19, for this purpose, has a retrospective operation. The object of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. was to render irremovable any person (not within the proviso in the 1st section) who should have resided five years in any parish, and part of such residence might have been before the passing of that act-The Queen v. Harrow-on-the-Hill (1).

[LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-Here the place was not a parish at the time of the residence. The words of the 20th Vict. are, "deemed a parish," not "to have been a parish." I think a residence for five years in a new extra-parochial place would give a status of irremovability. HILL, J.-It was not a parish when 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. was passed.]

LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-It is true the pauper was irremovable before the place became a parish, because there were no parish officers to make the complaint; but

(1) 12 Q.B. Rep. 103; s. c. 17 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 148.

2 B

Acting under False Colour and Pretence of County Court Process-Statute 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. s. 57.

The prisoner had obtained a blank form of instructions to be filled up by the plaintiffs for the purpose of having a county court summons issued against the defendants. This he filled up, and, without any authority, signed it "W. G., Registrar of the Taunton Court." The form stated his own name, Alexander Richmond, as plaintiff, the name of a debtor to himself, as defendant, the residences of both of them, the amount claimed, 9s. 6d., and the nature of the claim, goods sold and delivered. On the back the prisoner wrote," Unless the whole amount claimed by Alexander Richmond, draper, of Taunton, is paid on Saturday, an execution warrant will be immediately issued against you. Witness my signature, W. G." This he sent to the debtor with the view to obtain

(2) Lord Campbell, C.J. and Hill, J. Coram Cockburn, C.J., Erle, J., Crompton, J., Bramwell, B. and Watson, B.

indictable under section 57. of the statute 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, on the charge of acting or professing to act under false colour and pretence of the process of the county court.

This CASE was stated by Watson, B.

The prisoner was tried before me at the last Somersetshire Assizes, for an offence under the County Court Act (9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. s. 57.), in several counts, for acting and professing to act under false colour and pretence of process of the County Court of Somersetshire. The prisoner had obtained blank forms for the plaintiffs' instructions to issue county court summonses, one of which he filled up, and, without any authority, signed it, "William Giles, Registrar of the Taunton Court." (The original was annexed.) (1). On the back the prisoner wrote,-"Unless the whole amount claimed by Alexander Richmond, draper, of Taunton, is paid on Saturday, an execution warrant will be immediately issued against you. Witness my signature, William Giles." The registrar of the court is named William Giles. The signatures on the face and on the back were forgeries. This document the prisoner inclosed in an envelope, and sent it by post to the said Thomas Snooks, at Creech, St. Michael. The sum of 9s. 6d. was due from Thomas Snooks to the prisoner. The document was sent to Thomas Snooks to obtain payment of the said sum. Snooks's wife went with the said document (on re

No. of plaint, T. 568.

Plaintiff's name

ceiving the same) to Mr. Giles, the registrar, to pay the money, who refused to receive it, and Mr. Giles saw the prisoner and charged him with the offence, who confessed his guilt in having so written and sent this document. The words "by authority," printed on the document, referred to the form being issued by the authority of the authorities in London. It was contended, on the part of the prisoner, that this was not an offence within the above provision, and the case of The Queen v. Evans (2), and particularly an observation of Lord Campbell in delivering judgment, were cited:-I reserved the case for the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and admitted the prisoner to bail.

No counsel appeared for the prisoner. Edwards, for the prosecution. - The case of The Queen v. Evans is precisely in point. There it was held, that to constitute the offence of acting or professing to act under false colour and pretence of county court process, it was not necessary that there should be any actual process which the pretended process resembled.

COCKBURN, C.J.-This conviction must clearly be affirmed.

BRAMWELL, B.-I feel bound by the authority of the decision of The Queen v. Evans.

The rest of the COURT concurred in supporting the conviction.

Conviction affirmed.

[CROWN CASE RESERVED.]

1859.

}

May 7. S

THE QUEEN v. SIDEBOTHAM.*

Misdemeanour

Manchester Improvement Act-Building Houses with Fronts facing each other at a Distance of less than 24 feet.

By the Manchester Improvement Act, 8 9 Vict. c. cxli. s. 29, no street is to be made of less width than 24 feet; and by section 30. "it shall not be lawful to build within the borough any houses with their

(2) 1 Dears. & Bell, C.C. 236; s. c. 26 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 92.

Coram Cockburn, C.J., Erle, J., Crompton, J., Bramwell, B. and Watson, B.

fronts facing each other which shall be separated from each other by a space of less than 24 feet wide":-Held, that this section applies to prohibit the erection in a street in the borough of two houses at the same time, with their fronts facing each other, within the prescribed distance, and does not affect the erection of buildings not in a street.

The following CASE was stated by the Recorder of Manchester.

At the Manchester General City Sessions, holden before me on Monday, the 22nd of November 1858, John Sidebotham was tried and found guilty of a misdemeanour on the following indictment, that is to say:

City of Manchester, in the county of Lancaster, to wit. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath, present that, before and at the time of the committing the offence hereinafter mentioned, there was, and still is, within the said city of Manchester a certain house with the front facing unto a certain street within the said city of Manchester called Wright Street, and that John Sidebotham, late of the city aforesaid, in the county of Lancaster, bricklayer, then and there, well knowing the premises, on the 6th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1858, at the city aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, unlawfully did erect and build, within the said city and jurisdiction, a certain other house, to wit, a stable, in such a position that the fronts of the said two houses face each other, and are separated from each other by a space of less than 24 feet wide. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said house so unlawfully built and erected by the said John Sidebotham as aforesaid, has not, nor is, erected upon the sites or site of any houses or house built prior to the passing of a certain act of parliament passed in the ninth year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, entitled An Act to effect improvements in the borough of Manchester, for the purpose of promoting the health of the inhabitants thereof,' and that the said house so built by the said John Sidebotham as aforesaid was not, nor is, built up to, or according to, or in continuation of, or

within the line of, any house or houses already existing in the said street, and that the same was and is built with its front much nearer to the front of the said firstmentioned house than the line of the houses already existing on the opposite side of the said street from the said first-mentioned house, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

Second count. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that, before and at the time of the committing the offence hereinafter mentioned, there was, and still is, within the said city of Manchester, a certain house with the front facing unto a certain street within the said city, called Wright Street, and that the said John Sidebotham, late of the city aforesaid, in the county of Lancaster, then and there, well knowing the premises, on the 6th day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1858, at the city aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, unlawfully did erect and build within the said city and jurisdiction, a certain other house, to wit, a certain inclosure, to wit, a wall, in such a position that the fronts of the said two houses face each other, and are separated from each other by a space of less than 24 feet wide. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said house is unlawfully built and erected by the said John Sidebotham as aforesaid, has not been, nor is, erected upon the sites or site of any houses or house built prior to the passing of a certain act of parliament made and passed in the session of parliament held in the eighth and ninth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, entitled 'An Act to effect improvements in the borough of Manchester, for the purpose of promoting the health of the inhabitants thereof,' and that the said house so built by the said John Sidebotham as aforesaid was not nor is built up to, or according to, or in continuation of, or within the line of, any house or houses already existing in the said street, and that the same was, and is, built with its front much nearer to the front of the said first-mentioned house than the line of the houses already existing

on the opposite side of the said street from the said first-mentioned house, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

In the year 1842 or 1843 a row of cottage houses were built in the township of Ardwick, in the city of Manchester. There was no evidence to shew that the cottages had not been built up to the extreme limit of the land belonging to the owner of such cottages, except that he had made a flagged pavement in front of them of the width of 2 feet 6 inches; and the counsel for the prosecution stated that for the purposes of the trial it might be assumed that they had been built up to such extreme limit. The cottages fronted due south as near as possible, running east and west. At the time these cottages were built there was no house or building opposite to them. The whole of the land in front was vacant, that is, unbuilt upon. Seven or eight years ago, the present owner, Mr. Welsh, purchased these cottages. They were then not all finished, but they are now, and at this time are all tenanted; and at the time Mr. Welsh purchased them there was no wall or building opposite to them or any of them. In front of the cottage, at the west end of the row, was written "WRIGHT STREET," but no steps whatever had been taken to make it a street repairable by the public. The cottages at the west-end of the row abutted towards the west upon a paved street, but such paving does not extend beyond the front line of the cottages, and the narrow flagged pavement in front of the cottages going eastward extended only round the corner of the cottage at the east end of the row, and to the back door of that cottage, and no further; and there was no thoroughfare at all, the land to the east of the last-mentioned cottage belonging to the defendant. To the west, and in the direction of what is called Wright Street, there is a paved street, which is only 6 yards wide, and which has been paved by the town four or five years. The part so paved was an old street, and the town have not hitherto taken upon themselves to pave anything beyond the old street. After these cottages had been erected, and after they had become the property of Welsh as aforesaid, that is