Parish. Value. Verdict. A prisoner indicted for burglary, &c., found guilty upon the 12 Anne. part of an indictment upon the same statute where the house was stated to belong to S. Lunns, and it appeared on the evidence that the proper name was S. London. (s) Where the place is material the place stated as venue is to be taken to be the true place; therefore, in an indictment for stealing in a dwelling-house, if it is not expressly stated where the dwelling-house is situated, it shall be taken to be situated at the place named by way of venue. The prisoner was convicted upon an indictment, which stated that the prisoner at Liverpool, in the county aforesaid, one coat of the value, &c., in the dwelling-house of W. T., then and there being, then and there feloniously did steal, &c., but a doubt having occurred whether the situation of the house was sufficiently described, and whether the indictment ought not to have stated “in the dwelling-house of W. T. there situate," the point was submitted to the judges, who held that the indictment shewed sufficiently that the house was situate at Liverpool, and that the conviction was therefore proper. (t) In ascertaining the value of the articles stolen the jury may use that general knowledge which any man can bring to the subject, but if it depends on any particular knowledge of the trade, the juryman must be sworn. On an indictment for stealing a watch and seals of the value of 7., a witness having sworn that the property, in his opinion, was worth that sum, the jury inquired if they were at liberty to put a value on the property themselves; Parke, B., “If a gentleman is in the trade he must be sworn as a witness; that general knowledge which any man can bring to the subject may be used without; but if it depends upon any knowledge of the trade, the gentleman must be sworn." (u) In this, as in most other offences, any one of several persons may be found guilty upon an indictment charging them with a joint offence. But they cannot be found guilty separately of separate parts of the charge, and if they be so found guilty separately, a pardon must be obtained, or nolle prosequi entered, as to the one who stands second upon the verdict, before judgment can be given against the other. Thus, where two persons, Hempstead and Hudson, were indicted upon the statute of Anne for stealing in the dwelling-house to the value of 67. 10s., and the jury found Hempstead guilty as to part of the articles of the value of 6l., and Hudson guilty as to the residue; the judges, upon a case reserved, held that judgment could not be given against both, but that upon a pardon or nolle prosequi, as to Hudson, it might be given against Hempstead. (v) Where a prisoner was indicted for robbery in a house, or burglary and stealing of goods, and the evidence proved a larceny committed in the dwelling-house to the amount of forty shillings, it was held that he might be acquitted of the robbery and burglary, and found guilty upon the statute of Anne, although there was no special count upon the statute in the indictment. (w) (s) Woodward's case, 1 Leach, 253, note (a), and see other cases, ante, p. 827. (t) Rex v. Napper, M. T. 1834, R. & M. C. C. R. 44. See Rex v. Richards, 1 M. & Rob. 177, ante, p. 827. (u) Rex v. Rosser, 7 C. & P. 648, Parke, B, and Vaughan, J. (v) Rex v. Hempstead, M. T. 1817. MS. Bayley, J., and Russ. & Ry. 344. (w) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 36. Of Larceny Jrom the Dwelling-house, s. 3. the second So, upon an indictment for burglary and stealing to more than the amount of 5%., the prisoner may be acquitted of the burglary, and found guilty of stealing in the dwelling-house to the amount of 51. (x) Principals in the second degree, and accessories before the fact, Principals in are punishable with death, as the principals in the first degree; and accessories after the fact (except receivers of stolen property) degree, and are liable to imprisonment for two years. (y) The proceedings for the trial of accessories are regulated by the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, ss. 9, 10, 11. (2) (2) Rex v. Compton, 3 C. & P. 418, Gaselee, J. (y) 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 61. See the section, ante, p. 845, which if not expressly, seems to be impliedly, repealed by the 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 62, as to principals in the second degree, and accessories before the fact, who are now punishable in the same way as principals in the first degree, see ante, p. 853. A doubt may be (z) Ante, p. 39, et seq. accessories. CHAPTER THE SIXTH c. 29, s. 14. OF BREAKING, &c., AND STEALING IN A BUILDING WITHIN THE CURTILAGE. THE 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, after providing (by s. 13) that no building, although within the same curtilage with the dwelling-house, and occupied therewith, shall be deemed to be part of such dwellinghouse for the purpose of burglary, or for any of the purposes beforementioned in the act, unless there shall be a communication between such building and dwelling-house, either immediate, or by means of a covered and enclosed passage leading from the one to the other: 7 & 8 Geo. 4, by sec. 14 enacts," that if any person shall break and enter any building, and steal therein any chattel, money, or valuable security, (a) such building being within the curtilage of a dwelling-house, and occupied therewith, but not being part thereof, according to the provision hereinbefore mentioned, every such offender being convicted thereof, either upon an indictment for the same offence, or upon an indictment for burglary, house-breaking, or stealing to the value of five pounds in a dwelling-house, containing a separate count for such offence, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be transported beyond the seas for life, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years, and, if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice, publicly or privately whipped, (if the Court shall so think fit) in addition to such imprisonment." The 1 Vict. c. 90, s. 2, recites the preceding section, and repeals so much of it as relates to the punishment of persons convicted of any of the offences therein specified, and enacts, that "every person convicted after the commencement of this act (1 October, 1837) of any of such offences respectively, shall be liable to be transported beyond the seas for any term not exceeding fifteen years, nor less than ten years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years;" and by sec. 3, "it shall be lawful for the Court to direct such imprisonment to be with or without hard labour in the common gaol or house of correction, and also to direct that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of such imprisonment, or of such imprisonment with hard labour, not exceeding one month at any one time, and not exceeding three months in any one year, as to the Court in its discretion shall seem meet." By sec. 61, of the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, (b) principals in the second (a) See ante, p. 850, note (d). (b) This section does not appear to be repealed by the 1 Vict. c. 90; but as it only applies to felonies punishable under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, it seems doubtful whether principals in the second degree degree, and accessories before the fact are punishable in the same manner as principals in the first degree, and accessories after the fact, (except receivers) are liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years. (c) This enactment, specifying as it does in express terms a building within the curtilage of a dwelling-house, appears not to apply to many of those buildings and outhouses, which, although not within any common inclosure or curtilage, were deemed by the old law of burglary, parcel of the dwelling-house, from their adjoining to such dwelling-house, and being in the same occupation. The inquiry under this provision of the statute will be simply whether the building in question is within the curtilage or homestall; but it may be useful to refer to some of the points formerly decided in cases of burglary, in which it became material to consider whether particular buildings were parcel of a dwelling-house, and the circumstance of their being situated within a common inclosure appears to have been treated as a material ingredient. It should be observed, however, that in several of these cases the particular buildings might possibly have been held to be parcel of the dwelling-house independently of that circumstance. held to be par In a case where the prisoner had broken into a goose-house which Cases in which opened into the prosecutor's yard, into which yard the prosecutor's particular house also opened, and the yard was surrounded partly by other buildings were buildings of the homestead, and partly by a wall, some of which cel of a dwellbuildings had doors opening backwards, as well as doors opening into ing-house. the yard, and there was a gate in one part of the wall opening upon a road, the judges held that the goose-house was parcel of the dwelling-house. (d) In another case, the prosecutor's house was at the corner of a street, and adjoining thereto was a workshop, beyond which a stable and coach-house adjoined; all were used with the house, and had doors opening into a yard belonging to the house, which yard was surrounded by adjoining buildings, &c., so as to be altogether an enclosed yard; the workshop had no internal communication with the house, and it had a door opening into the street, and its roof was higher than that of the dwelling-house; the street-door of the workshop was broken open in the night; and, upon an indictment for burglary, the question arose, whether the workshop was parcel of the dwelling-house; and, upon a case reserved, the judges were unanimous that it was. (e) And it was holden, that an outhouse in the yard of a dwelling-house was parcel of the dwelling-house, the yard being inclosed, although the occupier had another dwelling-house opening into the yard, and had let such other dwelling-house with certain easements in the yard, the two houses having been originally in one. The prosecutor had in one range of buildings a house which he occupied, a house which he let, and a warehouse, all of which opened into a yard which was surrounded by a wall, gates, and buildings; the tenant of the second house had certain easements in and accessories are punishable under it. If not, they would seem to be punishable as for a felony, for which no express provision is made. See my note, ante, p. 116. C. S. G. (c) See this section, ante, p. 845. The proceedings for the trial of accessories are regulated by 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, ss. 9, 10, 11, ante, p. 39, et seq. (d) Rex v. Clayburn and another, East. (e) Rex v. Chalking and another, East. Centre building used for purposes of trade, but having no com. munication with the dwellinghouses which formed the wings. the yard, and his house was between the prosecutor's house and the warehouse, and the two houses had formerly been in one. The prisoner was convicted of burglary in breaking into the warehouse, and a case was reserved upon the question, whether such warehouse could be deemed part of the prosecutor's house; and the judges (nine of them being present) were of opinion that the warehouse was part of the prosecutor's house; it was so before the house was divided, and it remained so notwithstanding the division; and they held the conviction right. (ƒ) It It should seem that a building which was not any parcel of a dwelling-house, by the old law of burglary, cannot be considered as a building within the curtilage under the recent statute. will be material therefore to attend to the connection of the curtilage with some dwelling-house in which burglary might have been committed. And we have seen that, by the express provision of the statute, the building within the curtilage must be occupied with the dwelling-house. (g) It was holden that burglary could not be committed by breaking into a centre building used for the purposes of trade, but having no internal communication with the dwelling-houses which formed the wings. The building was stated, in the first count of the indictment, as the dwelling-house of M. R. Boulton; in the second, as the dwelling-house of J. Bush; and in the third, as the dwellinghouse of W. Nelson. The place broken into was a centre building, having two wings; in such centre building an extensive business was carried on, relating to different manufactories in which one Matthew Boulton was concerned with M. R. Boulton, W. Nelson, and several other persons; and also relating to two other manufactories in which Matthew Boulton was concerned on his own account in part of one of the wings was the dwelling-house of M. R. Boulton, and in the other part of the same wing, the dwelling-house of J. Bush, mentioned in the second count of the indictment, who was a workman of Matthew Boulton's; but neither of such dwelling-houses had any internal communication_with_the centre building, except only, in the one occupied by J. Bush, a window, which looked into a passage that ran the whole length of the centre building; and in the other wing was the dwelling-house of W. Nelson, which also had no internal communication with the centre building. In the front of this building there was a terrace or front yard, fenced round in different ways, and at the end of the pile of building, by a wall, with gates for horses and carriages, and a door for foot passengers: the prisoners entered by a door in the front yard, through which they went along the front of the building, and round it into another yard behind it, called the middle yard; from thence, through a door which had been left open, up a staircase in the centre building, where they broke open some of the rooms; having so entered the premises by the assistance of a servant of Matthew Boulton's, who acted as an accomplice for the purpose of effecting the apprehension of the prisoners. Upon a case reserved, the Judges agreed that the prisoners were not guilty of burglary; and the grounds upon which they so decided are |