BILL OF EXCHANGE. BENEFIT SOCIETY.

See LARCENY, 7.

BIGAMY.

1. If in a case of bigamy there be a discrepancy between the Christian name of the prisoner's first wife, as laid in the indictment, and as stated in the copy of the register, which is produced to prove the first marriage, the prisoner must be acquitted; unless that discrepancy can be explained, or, in the absence of such proof, unless it can be shewn that the first wife was known by both names. Reg. v. Gooding,

297

2. In a case of bigamy it appeared that the prisoner's first wife had left him sixteen years ago; and it was proved by the second wife that she had known him nine years living as a single man, and that she had never heard of the first wife, who, it appeared, had been living seventeen miles from where the prisoner resided:-Held, that on this evidence the prisoner ought to be acquitted on the proviso contained in the 22nd section of the 9 Geo. 4, c. 31. Reg. v. T. Jones,

BILL (IGNORED).
See INDICTMENT, 9.

614

4. The plaintiffs sold horses to the defendant on the 10th of March, 1840, and in payment the defendant gave a cheque on his bankers, which the plaintiffs crossed to their own bankers and paid in to them on the 11th of the same month. The defendant's bankers did not use the clearing-house in Lombard-street, and accordingly the plaintiffs' bankers presented the cheque to the defendant's bankers on the 12th, whereas, otherwise, they would have presented it at the clearing-house on the evening of the 11th. The defendant's bankers had stopped payment on the 12th:-Held, that the bankers of the plaintiffs had acted in strict accordance with the rules of mercantile law; but that the plaintiffs themselves had been guilty of laches in not paying the cheque to their bankers on the 10th, if they received it within banking hours. Alexander v. Burchfield, 75

5. If a party makes a promissory note, whereby be promises to pay the plaintiff, or order, "£600, with interest thereon, at the rate of six per cent. per annum, twelve months after

680 BILL OF EXCHANGE.

date," the judge will advise the jury, in allowing interest up to the time of signing judgment, to allow it at the rate of five per cent. only. Ward v. Morrison, 368

6. A notice of dishonour, addressed to the defendant, stating, that "your draft upon Mr. G. C. for £50, due 3rd March, is returned to us unpaid, and, if not taken up in the course of this day, proceedings will be taken against both you and him for the recovery thereof," is a good notice of dishonour. Robson v. Curlewis, 378

7. If a bill of exchange or promissory note be drawn, accepted, or indorsed, by one of two persons who are partners in a business which is not a trade (e. g. as attornies), in the name of the firm, and the partner, who did not write the names of the firm, by his plea deny the drawing, acceptance, or indorsement respectively, the plaintiff must give evidence of the authority of the other partner to draw, accept, or indorse in the name of the firm; but in the case of a commercial firm this is not necessary, as there is a general authority. Levy v. Pyne,

453

P.

8. P. & R., who were in partnership as attornies, were sued as the indorsers of a promissory note indorsed by P. in the name of the firm. suffered judgment by default, and R. pleaded that he did not indorse :Held, that in order to shew an authority in P. to indorse notes in the name of the firm, parol evidence could not be given of other bills and notes drawn, accepted, or indorsed in a similar manner and paid by the firm, as shewing a course of dealing; but that each bill and note must be produced or accounted for; and that such of the bills or notes as had been given up to the defendants when paid, might be called for under a notice to produce, and, if not produced, secondary evidence might be given of their con

BOARD AND LODGING.

9. Held also, that evidence might be given of bills and notes (which were produced) which had been drawn, accepted, or indorsed by R. in the name of the firm, and which were afterwards paid by the firm, as this was evidence of a mutual authority for each partner to draw, accept, and indorse notes and bills in the name of the firm. Ibid.

10. In an action on a promissory note, the note purported to be "For value received in Pennance shares, pursuant to annexed contract;" no contract was in fact annexed:-Held, that this special description of the consideration for the note did not render it incumbent on the plaintiff to put in any contract or other document beside the note itself, in order to establish his case. Fox v. Frith, 502

11. The defendant's father owed the plaintiff money for goods sold; and for the price of these goods the defendant made his promissory note in his own name, and gave it to the plaintiff, who was cognizant of all the facts, and that the defendant had received no consideration for the note: -Held, that the above circumstances could not be given in evidence under a plea of "accommodation bill," and that there was in this case an original liability on the part of the defendant, and that for a good consideration, viz. family affection. Cook v. Long, 510

ment.

12. A paper in the following form, "W. W. lent to J. R. the sum of 197. 19s. 11d. to receive 5 per sent. for the same 197. 198. 11d.; to pay on demand to the said W. W., giving J. R. six months' notice for the same,' is a promissory note, and not an agreeWalker v. Roberts, 590 BIRTH (CONCEALMENT OF). See CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. BOARD AND LODGING. A. placed his son with B., a chemist

and druggist, who intended to pass his examination at Apothecaries' Hall, but was delayed in so doing by ill health. It was intended that A.'s son should be apprenticed to B., but he stayed for five years with B., having his board and lodging, and being taught the business of a chemist and druggist, and he then left B., and was never apprenticed to him:-Held, that, to entitle B. to recover for the board, lodging, and teaching of A.'s son, the jury must be satisfied that A.'s son was placed with B. upon an agreement or understanding that B. was to be paid for his board and lodging and for teaching him; but if the jury were not so satisfied, or if they thought that A.'s son was not to be paid for till B. had passed his examination at Apothecaries' Hall, and that A.'s son was then to be appren ticed to B. as an apothecary :-Held, that B. was not entitled to recover any thing for the board and lodging and teaching during the five years. Attwaters v. Courtney,

51

BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPER.

See BANKRUPT, 1.

BRIDGE.

A bridge had been built before 43 Geo. 3 over a stream of water. The stream was never known to be dry, but in the winter its depth only averaged two-and-a-half feet. It was part of a sheet of water crossing low land, and at the place where the bridge crossed it, it was confined by embankments to prevent it from overflowing the adjoining meadows. The judge left it to the jury whether this structure were a bridge over a stream of water, for, if so, it was not necessary that it should be for the convenience of the public under 43 Geo. 3, c. 59, s. 5, but the county were liable to repair it. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Gloucestershire,

506

BURGLARY,

See INDICTMENT, 1, 6.

1. A servant pretended to concur with two persons, who proposed to him to unite with them in robbing his master's house. The master being out of town, the servant communicated with the police, and acted under their instructions. In consequence of this, a little after 9 o'clock one evening, he let in one of the persons by lifting the latch, but before that person had taken any property he was seized by the police, and, a crowbar being found upon him, was immediately placed in confinement. After this the servant went out again and fetched the second person, and let him in in the same manner. This person was seized with a basket of plate in his hand, which he had carried from the kitchen part of the way up-stairs :-Held, that neither of the persons could be convicted of burglary; but that the one who was seized with the plate might be convicted of stealing in a dwelling-house, and also that the other might be indicted as an accessory before the fact to such stealing. Reg. v. Johnson,

218

2. The burglariously breaking and entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a rape, is not a crime which includes an assault; and therefore in an indictment for such a burglary the prisoner cannot be convicted of an assault under the 11th sect. of the stat. 1 Vict. c. 85. Reg. v. Watkins, 264

3. An indictment charged a prisoner with having burglariously broken and entered a dwelling-house, " with intent one A. D. in the said dwellinghouse then being violently and against her will then and there feloniously to ravish and carnally know;" whether that allegation is sufficient without the addition of the words, "in the

CARRIER.

See NEGLIGENCE, 5.

1. Silk dresses made up for wearing are not "silks" within the meaning of the Carriers' Act, 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 61, s. 1: nor are an eye-glass with a gold chain attached to it, for the purpose of its being hung round the neck of the wearer, "trinkets" within the meaning of that enactment. Davey v. Mason, 45

2. If a message be left at the booking-office of a carrier from N. to L. for his van to call for the plaintiff's luggage, at another inn, for the purpose of its being carried to L., and the carrier's servant and van go to the other inn, and the plaintiff's luggage be there put into the carrier's van and afterwards lost therefrom, the carrier is liable for the loss, just as he would be if the luggage of the plaintiff had been taken to the defendant's regular booking-office. Ibid.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. See ACCESSORY, 1.-JUROR, 1. Rule as to the issuing of process. 254

CERTIFICATE FOR SPEEDY
EXECUTION.
See EXECUTION, 1.

CESTUI QUE TRUST. See EJECTMENT, 2.

CHALLENGE OF JURORS. See ISSUE FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY, 3.-JUROR, 2.

COIN (OFFENCES RELATING TO THE).

In order to convict a person charged on the stat. 2 Will. 4, c. 34, s. 8, with having in his possession more than three pieces of counterfeit coin, with intent to utter them, it is not necessary that the possession should be individual possession, but it is enough if the coin be in the possession of the person charged, or his immediate agent; as the interpretation clause of the same statute (s. 21) provides for such a case; therefore where two persons were taken into custody together, one of them having on him sixteen pieces of counterfeit coin, and the other only two pieces, the judges held, that the person who had only the two pieces might, in point of law, be convicted as well as the person who had the sixteen. Reg. v. Williams, 259

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN. See L. C. J. TINDAL'S CHArge, p. 661.

COMMON PURPOSE. See L. C. J. TINDAL'S CHARge, p. 661.-WOUNDING, 2.

COMMONS (OFFICERS OF THE HOUSE OF).

See TRESPASS, 6.

COMPUTUS (ANCIENT).

See EVIDENCE, 2.

CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.

If a woman endeavour to conceal the birth of her child by placing the dead body of the child between a bed and a mattrass, this is a sufficient disposing of the dead body to constitute an offence within the stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 14, and it is not essential to such an offence that the dead body should either be put in some place intended for its final deposit, or be buried or destroyed. Reg. v. Goldthorpe,

CONFESSION.

See DEPOSITION, 4.

335

1. A servant was charged with attempting to set fire to her master's house. It was proved that the furniture in two of the bed-rooms was on fire, and a spoon and other articles were found in the sucker of the pump. The master told the prisoner, that if she did not tell the truth about the things found in the pump he would send for the constable to take her, but he said nothing to her respecting the fire:-Held, that this was such an inducement to confess as would render inadmissible any statement that the prisoner made respecting the fire, as the whole was to be considered as one transaction. Reg. v. Hearn,

109

2. The prosecutor proved, that when the prisoner was before, the magistrate she was duly cautioned, and that she made a statement, which was taken down and read over to her, and to which she made her mark, the magistrate also signing it. The prosecutor identified the paper by his own signature to his own deposition, being on the same sheet of paper:Held, that the prisoner's statement might be given in evidence without examining either the magistrate or his clerk. Ibid.

3. A. B., a witness on a coroner's

inquest, made a deposition, in which she stated a conversation with the prisoner on their seeing a placard relating to the murder of the deceased, and also stated that she called the prisoner a murderer; and also that she slept with the prisoner, and that he beat her, and gave her two black eyes. The prisoner made a statement before the coroner, which was taken down in the following form:-" Prisoner admits sleeping with witness, blacking her eyes, seeing the placard, and his beating her, and her calling him murderer." Semble, that the statement of the prisoner, and also the deposition of A. B., were receivable in evidence against the prisoner on his trial for the murder, and that it was no objection in point of law to the receiving of the statement in evidence, that it began, "Prisoner admits," although that is a very improper way of taking down a prisoner's statement. Reg. v. Roche,

341

4. A female servant being suspected of stealing money, her mistress on a Monday, told her that she would forgive her if she told the truth. On the Tuesday she was taken before a magistrate, and was discharged, no one appearing against her. On the Wednesday, the superintendent of police went with her mistress to the bridewell and told her, in the presence of her mistress, that she "was not bound to say anything unless she liked, and that if she had anything to say her mistress would hear her;" but the superintendent (not knowing that her mistress had promised to forgive her) did not tell her that if she made a statement it might be given in evidence against her. The prisoner made a statement:-Held, that this statement was not receivable in evidence, as the promise of the mistress must be considered as still operating on the prisoner's mind at the time of the statement; but that if the mistress