Page images
PDF
EPUB

694 FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

said on the subject, in the absence of A., was not receivable in evidence, as that would be merely an admission by A.'s father, under whom A. claimed, but under whom the plaintiff did not claim. Ibid.

FALSE ANSWER. See VOTER.

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

1. A. had communicated to B. & Co., who were distillers, a method of rectifying spirits, and they were to pay him an annuity, and 6d. a gallon on all spirits rectified by his method, and to keep an account. A. having a sum due to him, B. & Co. offered to pay it at their solicitor's office, and to produce the account there. A. sent B. & Co. a letter, stating that he should come to the distillery for a sight of the account, and for payment; to which G., one of the firm of B. & Co., replied by letter, stating, that if A. came to the distillery and either rang or knocked, he would be punished, &c. A. went to the distillery (which was within the Metropolitan Police district), and gently rang the gate bell, when H., who was the cashier of the firm, gave A. into the custody of a policeman on a charge of having rung the bell, contrary to the 54th section of the Police Act, 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47:-Held, in an action for false imprisonment by A. against G. and H., that this was not a case within that act, and that G. and H. were not justified under that act, and that they were not entitled to notice of action. Home v. Grimble, 17

2. On the trial of an action for assault and false imprisonment on a charge of felony, if the plaintiff's counsel ask his witness what was said by the defendant when the parties were before the magistrate, the defendant's counsel may ask, on cross

FALSE IMPRISONMENT.

examination, what was said by the magistrate. Richards v. Turner, 414

3. Where a plea of justification in such a case states, that the plaintiff committed the felony, the jury must try that question in the same way as if they were sitting in a criminal court trying the plaintiff for the offence itself; and if a witness, who admits that he stole similar property at the same time, be called to sustain the plea, though he is not exactly in the situation of an accomplice, yet it seems that his testimony ought to receive some confirmation. Ibid.

4. After a summons issued, information was given before the magistrate that the party against whom the summons had been granted was going out of the magistrate's jurisdiction, who thereupon issued his warrant, and the person was taken into custody and afterwards brought his action against the magistrate for false imprisonment. At the trial the summons was given in evidence, and the warrant, but not the information :-Held, that the evidence was not sufficient, and that the magistrate must put in the information to justify his warrant for apprehension, for that, without a proper information, the magistrate is liable in an action for false imprisonment, if the party be taken. Stephens v. Clark, 509

5. Trespass was brought against three defendants for an assault committed in Bristol. Two of them were constables of Oxford, and had come down and taken the plaintiff at Bristol (thus committing the assault) on suspicion of his having stolen a horse belonging to the other defendant in Oxfordshire. The declaration set out all the trespasses to have been done without reasonable or probable cause. The two constables pleaded not guilty only-Held, that they might give the special matter in evidence in mitigation of damages, to shew that there was reasonable and probable cause;

[blocks in formation]

2. An indictment for false pretences against H. and B. charged that F. P. was possessed of a mare, and H. of a horse, and that H. and B. falsely pretended to F. P. that B. "was then and there possessed of a certain sum of money, to wit, the sum of 121.," and that if F. P. would exchange his mare for H.'s horse, B. was willing and ready to purchase the horse of F. P. and give him 127. for it; "whereas in truth and in fact the said J. B. was not then and there possessed of the said sum of 127.," and was not then and there ready and willing to purchase the said horse :-Held, that the indictment was bad, as it did not aver that the defendants knew that B. was not possessed of 121.

Ibid.

3. The prisoner paid his addresses to the prosecutrix, and obtained a promise of marriage from her, which promise she afterwards refused to ratify. He then threatened her with an action, and by this means obtained money from her. During the whole of the transactions the prisoner had a wife. On an indictment against him for obtaining money under false pretences, the pretences laid were, first, that he was unmarried; secondly, that he was entitled to bring and maintain his

action against her for a breach of promise of marriage: Held, that the fact of the prisoner paying his addresses was sufficient evidence for the jury on which they might find the first pretence, that the prisoner was a single man and in a condition to marry; and that there was sufficient evidence on which to find the falseness of the other pretence, that he was entitled to maintain his action for breach of promise of marriage, and that such latter false pretence was a sufficient false pretence within the statute. Reg. v. Copeland,

4. Form of indictment.

516 Ibid.

5. A defendant was charged in the first count of an indictment with having falsely pretended that he was Mr. H., who had cured Mrs. C. at the Oxford Infirmary, and thereby obtaining one sovereign, with intent to defraud G. P. "of the same." The second count laid the intent to be to defraud G. P. "of the sum of 58., parcel of the value of the said lastmentioned piece of the current gold coin." It was proved, that the defendant made the pretence and thereby induced the prosecutor to buy, at the price of 58., a bottle containing something which he said would cure the eye of the prosecutor's child. The prosecutor gave him a sovereign and received 158. in change. It was further proved that the defendant was not Mr. H. :—Held, that this was a false pretence within the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53, and that the intent was properly laid in the second count. Reg. v. Bloomfield, 537

FILIATION (ORDER OF). See GUARDIAN OF THE POOR.

FORGERY.

1. A customer in the country had an account open with a wholesale

house in London: a letter purporting to come from him was delivered at their place of business; it was in the following form:-"I shall feel obliged by your paying Mr. B. the sum of 21. 78. 8d., and debiting me with the same. You will please have a receipt, and add the amount to invoice of order on hand." It appeared to be the practice of the house in London to pay to country customers on requests of a similar description. The party who sent it by an innocent agent, and obtained the money on it, was indicted for forging and uttering it. The instrument was described in the indictment as an undertaking—a warrant-and an order, each for the payment of 21. 78. 8d. The prisoner having been convicted of uttering, the fifteen judges held the conviction wrong, being of opinion that the instrument was neither an undertaking, a warrant, nor an order. Reg. v. Thorn, 206

2. On an indictment for forging and uttering a "warrant and order for the payment of money, to wit, a warrant and order for the payment of £85," and for forging and uttering an

[ocr errors]

acquittance and receipt for money, to wit, for £85;" it was proved, that J. M. had paid £85 into the D. bank, and had taken an accountable receipt for that amount; and that the course of dealing at the D. bank was to treat the accountable receipt with the depositor's signature on the face of it as an order for the payment of the money deposited and interest; and that the prisoner went to the D. bank with the receipt that had been given to J. M., and having written the name of J. M. on the face of it he delivered it to the bankers, who paid him £85, and also 21. 178. 6d. for interest. The prisoner was convicted, and the fifteen judges held the conviction right. Reg. v. Atkinson, 325

3. H. employed J. L. to do work for him. J. L. had a partner named S., who took no active part in the

[blocks in formation]

L. asked for payment for the work, and H. paid him by a forged bill of exchange, knowing it to be so. J. L. indorsed the bill in his own name only, and gave it to his partner S., who afterwards indorsed it with his own name, and paid it away. H. was convicted of the uttering on a count which laid an intent to defraud J. L., and the judges held the conviction right. Reg. v. Hanson, 334

4. If the course of dealing between A. & B. is that A. shall write persons names in a list, with a sum against each name, on sight of which B. is to furnish goods on the credit of A. to each person whose name is on the list, to the amount set against his name; such list is a request for the delivery of goods, and the fraudulent alteration of one of the sums in it is indictable as a forgery under the stat. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 10. Reg. v. Walters, 588

5. D. was in the habit of buying bones for F., and of drawing on F. for the price before he delivered the bones. The prisoner forged D.'s name to a letter to F. asking for £3, and stating that D. had bought a large quantity of bones. F. did not at this time owe any money to D.:— Held, that this was not an order for the payment of money within the stat. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66. Reg. v. Roberts, 652

FRAUD.

See MONEY HAD AND Received.

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF
See AGREEMENT.

FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
See LARCENY, 7.

GOODS BADLY MADE.

If A. employ B. to make bricks for him at a stipulated price per thousand,

and B. do so, and some of the bricks be so badly made as to be good for nothing, A. will be entitled to make a deduction for these badly made bricks out of the stipulated price, and may make such deduction in an action brought by B. for the stipulated price; but if the bricks be badly made in a trifling degree only, so as merely to be less valuable than they otherwise would have been, A., in an action for the stipulated price, will not be entitled to make any deduction on this account. Pardow v. Webb,

GRAND JURY.

531

See WITNESS IMPROPERLY SWORN TO GO BEFORE THE GRAND JURY.

GUARDIAN OF THE POOR.

1. A magistrate residing within a poor-law union is only a guardian ex officio under the Poor Law Amendment Act, while he is acting as such guardian. Reg. v. Cant, 521

2. Two magistrates made an order of filiation under the stat. 2 & 3 Vict. c. 85, upon the complaint of the guardians of the T. union. Both the magistrates resided within the T. union, and were, therefore, guardians ex officio of it; and one of them was a rated inhabitant of a township within the T. union, but not that in favour of which the order was made; one of the magistrates had, on other occasions, acted as a guardian ex officio; but neither had acted as a guardian in anything respecting this matter:Held, that the order was good, Ibid.

HIGH TREASON.

See L. C. J. TINDAL'S CHARGE, p. 661.-POSTPONING TRIAL, 3.

HIGHWAY.

See EVIDENCE, 9, 10, 11.

In an indictment for a nuisance, in obstructing a highway "leading from

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

words "then and there," in the last allegation, were sufficient without the words "in the same dwelling-house" being added to them. Reg. v. Andrews, 121

2. In an indictment for receiving stolen tin, "ingots of tin" are properly described as so many pounds weight of tin; so, it would be proper to describe a bar of iron as so many pounds weight of iron; but if an article has obtained, in common parlance, a particular name of its own, it would be wrong to describe it by the name of the material of which it is composed; thus, it would be a misdescription to describe cloth as so many pounds weight of wool, or sovereigns as so many ounces of gold. Reg. v. Mansfield,

140

3. An indictment charged a prisoner with having burglariously broken and entered a dwelling-house "with intent one A. D., in the said dwellinghouse there 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 said dwelling-house," after the words "then and there "-quære. Reg. v. Watkins,

264

[blocks in formation]

others," with intent to defraud "the said J. D. and others :"-Held, that the words "and others" throughout this indictment must be taken to mean others the partners of J. D., and not persons wholly unconnected with J. D.; and that, on the trial of this indictment, evidence was not admissible to shew that the defendant attempted to defraud other persons wholly unconnected with J. D. Reg. v. Steel, 337

6. In an indictment for burglary it is sufficient to allege that the burglary was committed at a place, naming it, e. g. "at Norton-juxtaKempsey, in the county aforesaid,” without stating the place to be a parish, vill, chapelry, or the like. Reg. v. Brookes,

544

7. An indictment for breaking into a warehouse and stealing goods stated the offence to have been committed in "the parish of St. Peter the Great, in the county of W." It appeared that only part of the parish of St. Peter the Great was in the county of W.:-Held, that the indictment could not be supported for the breaking into the warehouse, but that it was sufficient for the larceny; and that to be good as to the breaking it should have charged the offence to have been committed" in that part of the parish of St. Peter the Great which lies within the county of W." 543

8. A defendant in an indictment cannot after plea take advantage of any defect which is aided after verdict by the 21st sect. of the stat. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, the only mode of taking advantage of such defects being by demurrer. Reg. v. Ellis, 564

9. If the grand jury at the assizes or sessions have ignored a bill, they cannot find another bill against the same person for the same offence, at the same assizes or sessions; and if such other bill be sent before them they should take no notice of it. Reg. v. Humphreys,

601

« EelmineJätka »