will or without the consent of the party robbed; see ante, p. 364; without any bonâ fide claim of right on the part of the taker; ante, p. 365; and with a felonious intent; ante, pp. 366, 381. Where the prisoner, a poacher, set wires in a manor to catch game, and the gamekeeper finding them, took them, and a pheasant which had been caught in one of them, into his possession; the prisoner demanded the wires and the pheasant from the gamekeeper, who refused to give them up; but the prisoner lifting up a large stick, and threatening to beat the gamekeeper's brains out if he did not, the latter fearing violence, gave them up: the prisoner being indicted for this as a robbery, Vaughan, B., held that if he acted upon the impression that the wires and pheasant were his property, there being in that case no animus furandi, the prisoner could not be convicted; and the jury being of that opinion, found him not guilty. R. v. Hall, 3 Car. & P. 409. As to the goods stolen, the statute (7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 6), describes them as "any chattel, money, or valuable security." As to the meaning of valuable security, see ante, p. 392. Upon an indictment for robbery, it appeared that the prisoners attacked the prosecutor, but the only thing he had about him was a piece of paper containing a memorandum of money which a person owed him: Gurney, B., held it sufficient to constitute robbery. R. v. Bingley et al., 5 Car. & P. 602. But where the prisoner, a female, was indicted for robbing a gentleman of a promissory note for 2,000l., it appeared that she had procured a stamp for a note of that amount, inveigled the prosecutor to her house, detained him there by force for three hours, and under a menace of death compelled him to write the promissory note upon the paper, which she kept and endeavoured to procure it to be discounted the next day: nine of the judges held this not to be robbery, as the note was of no value to the prosecutor, and he never had the peaceable possession of it, so as to be able to do what he pleased with it. R. v. Phipoe, 2 East, P. C. 599. 2 Leach, 774. In this latter case, it is to be observed, that the paper and stamp were the property of the prisoner. See R. v. Minter Hart, ante, pp. 393, 394. R. v. After the offence is once complete, it cannot be purged by the offender giving back the property stolen to the owner. Peat, 2 East, P. C. 557. Principals.] If several, acting in concert, be present at a robbery, all are guilty, as well those who use violence, or take the property, as those who do not. 1 Hawk. c. 34, s. 5. But where a gang of poachers, consisting of the prisoners and one Williams, attacked a gamekeeper, beat him and left him senseless on the ground, and then went away; but Williams returned, and whilst the gamekeeper was still in sensible, took from him his gun, pocket book and money: Park, J., held that this was robbery in Williams only. R. v. Hawkins et al., 3 Car. & A. 392. Verdict.] The jury may find the defendant guilty; or if the prosecutor fail in proving the violence or threats, &c., the jury may find the defendant not guilty of the robbery, but guilty of stealing from the person, R. v. Walls et al., 2 Car. K. 214, or of simple larceny; or if the larceny be not proved, the jury may find the defendant not guilty of the robbery, but guilty of an assault with intent to rob. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 11, ante, pp. 174, 124. Robbery, and Wounding, &c. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. Soath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord- [Here state the robbery, as in the last form, ante, p. 417, except the conclusion; and then add:] and that the said A. B., immediately before [or at the time-or immediately after] he so committed the said robbery as aforesaid, feloniously did stab, cut, and wound the said C. D. [or one E. F., who then was there present] : Or-And that the said A. B., immediately before [or at the time-or immediately after] he so committed the said robbery as aforesaid, feloniously did beat, strike, [and if any other personal violence were offered, state it] the said C. D. [or one E. F., who then was there present] : Or-And that the said A. B., at the time he so committed the said robbery as aforesaid, was armed with a certain offensive weapon ["weapon or instrument"] to wit, a [pistol]: 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. [There is also a clause in the statute, sect. 8, which makes a robbery additionally penal, if committed by two or more persons; in such a case the indictment may state that the defendant —" together with one G. H.," or "together with one other person to the jurors aforesaid unknown," &c. Robbery, and cutting, stabbing, or wounding, is felony, death. 1 Vict. c. 87, s. 2. Robbery, and beating, striking, or using any other personal violence,- —or robbery by two or more,-is felony, transportation for life, or not less than fifteen years;—or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 10] for not more than three years, 1 Vict. c. 87, s. 3, the imprisonment solitary for not more than one month at a time, or three months in a year. Id. s. 10. Evidence. 3 To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. The robbery, as directed, ante, p. 418. 2. The stabbing, cutting, or wounding, (see ante, p. 260), -or the beating, striking, or other personal violence,-or the defendant being armed, as stated in the indictment. The statute does not confine this to the party robbed, the words being "whosoever shall rob any person, and shall stab, cut, or wound any person;" and the same as to the striking or beating. So that if A. and B. be in company at the time of the robbery, and A. be robbed and B. wounded or beaten, it should seem to be within the meaning of the Act. Assault with intent to Rob. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their :-or to wit. Soath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord - in and upon one C. D. feloniously did make an assault, with intent then to rob the said C. D., and feloniously and violently to steal, take, and carry away the monies, goods, and chattels of the said C. D., from the person and against the will of the said C. D.: [add, if the facts will warrant it—And the said A. B., at the time he so committed the said assault, was armed with a certain offensive weapon ["weapon or instrument"], to wit, a [pistol] :And the said A. B., at the time [or immediately before, or immediately after] he so committed the said assault, did feloniously beat and strike [if any other personal violence were offered, state it] the said C. D. [or one E. F., who then was there present]: 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. [There is also a clause in the statute, sect. 3, which makes an assault with intent to rob, by two or more persons, additionally penal; in such a case the indictment may state that the defendant on—, "together with one G. H." or "together with one other person to the jurors aforesaid unknown," &c. Felony; imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 10] for not more than three years, 1 Vict. c. 87, s. 6, the imprisonment solitary for not more than one month at a time, or three months in a year. Id. s. 10. If the defendant be armed,—or be in company with one or more other persons,—or beat or strike, &c.,—felony, transportation for life, or for not less than fifteen years,—or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 10], for not more than three years. 1 Vict. c. 87, s. 3. The imprisonment may be solitary for one month at a time, or three months in a year. Id. s. 10. Evidence. ▼ An assault is an attempt to commit a forcible crime against the person of another. Therefore an assault with intent to commit a robbery, is nothing more than an attempt or endeavour to commit a robbery. And consequently, in order to maintain this indictment, for the assault with intent, &c., it is not necessary to prove an assault, in the vulgar and ordinary acceptation of the term, namely, an attempt to commit a battery; but all that is necessary, on the part of the prosecutor to prove, is, that the prisoner intended to rob him, and that he did some act, in the presence of the prosecutor, for the purpose of effecting the robbery intended. The intention must of course be proved from some overt act or expressions of the defendant; and the overt act will also prove the assault as well as the intention. Where upon an indictment against two persons for this offence, it appeared that the prosecutor was walking in Hyde Park, when one of the prisoners accosted him, asked him the way to the city, which the prosecutor told him; upon which the other prisoner came up, collared the prosecutor, and said, "You damned beast, you have been indecently exposing your person; I have been watching you and your friend (pointing to the other) for three quarters of an hour;" he then forced the prosecutor to go to the police station, the other prisoner accompanying them part of the way, and he there made the same charge against him, adding that the private parts of the men were exposed, and other circumstances; all this was a mere fiction, and many circumstances were proved to show that the whole was a preconcerted plan between the two prisoners to extort money from the prosecutor; but no money was given: Rolfe, B., told the the jury that if this assault and charge were in pursuance of such a preconcerted plan, it was in law an assault with intent to rob, and the jury found the prisoners guilty accordingly; and the question being reserved for the opinon of the judges, whether these facts maintained the indictment, the charge made not coming within the meaning of the statutes as to accusing persons for the purpose of extorting money, &c., (ante, pp. 327, 326)-the judges held the conviction to be right, as there was actual violence, and an attempt to extort money by means of that violence combined with threats calculated to induce the prosecutor to part with his money. R. v. Stringer et al., 1 Car. & K. 188. But where a man, under a feasible claim of right, assaulted another for the purpose of getting certain money from him: it was holden that he could not be convicted. R. v. Boden, 1 Car. § K. 395. 2. Prove that he beat or struck, or used other violence to, the prosecutor, or other person,-as stated in the indictment. If you should fail in this, still the defendant may be convicted of the assault with intent to rob. Demanding Money with Menaces or by Force, with intent to Steal. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. Soath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord, did with menaces [or by force] feloniously demand of C. D. certain money of the said C. D. [or a certain of the goods and chattels of the said C. D., or a certain valuable security, to wit, a the property of him the said C. D.,-" any property,"] with intent the same then to steal, take, and carry away: 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. [You may add a count, stating the particulars of the menaces, &c., used. Where the indictment stated that the prisoner "feloniously by menaces did demand the monies of the said J. A." the judges held it insufficient, because it did not state on whom the demand was made. R. v. Dunkely et al., Ry. & M. 90. Felony; imprisonment [with or without hard labour, 8. 10,] for not more than three years; 1 Vict, c. 87, s. 7; the imprisonment may be solitary, for not more than a month at a time, or three months in the course of a year. Id. s. 10. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. The menaces or force used by the prisoner to the prose→ cutor, as stated in the indictment. 2. The demand of the property, as stated. And this demand may be either express, or implied from the menaces or |