v. WRIGHT and THE QUEEN that the said Mary Harriet Campbell died on the 14th day of October, in the year of our Lord' 1829, a widow, and intestate; and leaving her, the said Sophia Pennell, one of the lawful children, to be exhibited in the said Prerogative Court of Canterbury, then and there purporting to grant administration of the goods, chattels, and credits of the said Mary Harriet Campbell, deceased intestate, to the said Sophia Pennell, as one of the lawful children of the said Mary Harriet Campbell. And the jurors aforesaid do further present, that in further pursuance of the said conspiracy, confederacy, and agreement, the said Charles Wright and Sophia Pennell, afterwards, that is to say, on the 8th day of June, in the eleventh year of the reign of our said late lord the king, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, unlawfully, falsely, fraudulently, &c., did cause and procure a certain other false deposition, then and there purporting to have been made upon oath by the said Sophia Pennell, as being a widow, and wherein the said Sophia Pennell then and there falsely stated and alleged that the said Mary Harriet Campbell was dead, and that the said Sophia Pennell was one of her lawful children, to be exhibited in the said Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, then and there purporting to grant administrations to be issued by the said Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, then and there purporting to grant administrations to the said Sophia Pennell, as a widow, and as one of the lawful children, and as administratrix of the goods of the said Mary Harriet Campbell, deceased, with a certain codicil or confirmation of a certain will annexed, of the goods, chattels, and credits of the said Charles Campbell, limited so far as concerned his effects in England, and also limited until the original will, or an authentic copy thereof, should be brought into and left in the registry of the said court, left unadministered by the said Mary Harriet Campbell, deceased; whilst living, the relic, sole executrix, and universal legatee of the said Charles Campbell's effects in England, named in the said codicil, or confirmation of the said will, acting by her the said Mary Harriet Campbell's authority. And the said Charles Wright and Sophia Pennell, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, confederacy, and agreement, did afterwards, to wit, on the 22nd day of June, in the eleventh year of the reign of our late Sovereign Lord George the Fourth, that is to say, at the parish aforesaid, in the ward aforesaid, in London aforesaid, present, and cause and procure to be presented, such last-mentioned letters of administration to the said United Company of Merchants of England trading in the East Indies, and their lawful agents in that behalf, and did then and there, by such subtle, false, fraudulent, &c. &c., as aforesaid, falsely, fraudulently, and deceitfully obtain the means and power, to and for the said Sophia Pennell, of transferring and disposing of the said sum of 9651. East-India Stock, for a large sum of money, to wit, the sum of 2,500l., and which the said Sophia Pennell did then and there, by such ways and means as aforesaid, unlawfully obtain and receive, to and for her own use and benefit. And the said Sophia Pennell did also, by the said false and fraudulent ways and means, then and there obtain payment to her, the said Sophia Pennell, from the said United Company V. WRIGHT and of Merchants, of the said dividends and sums of money of the value THE QUEEN aforesaid. Whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Sophia Pennell was not at any, or either of the times, a widow; but, on the contrary, during all the times aforesaid, was, and still is, the wife of the said George Pennell, and who, during all the time aforesaid, was, and still is, living, and as the said Charles Wright and Sophia Pennell, during all the time aforesaid, well knew, to wit, at the parish and ward aforesaid, in London aforesaid. And whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Mary Harriet Campbell, during all the time aforesaid, was, and still is, living, and in full life, that is to say, at the parish and ward aforesaid, in London aforesaid, and which the said Charles Wright and the said Sophia Pennell well knew. And whereas, in truth and in fact, the said Sophia Pennell was not, nor is, the lawful daughter of the said Mary Harriet Campbell, and which the said Charles Wright and Sophia Pennell well knew, to wit, at London, aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, with intention to defraud the said Mary Harriet Campbell; to the great damage of the said Mary Harriet Campbell, to the evil example of all others, and against the peace of our said late sovereign, George the Fourth, then our king." The second count was similar, stating that the acts were done with the intent to defraud the East-India Company. The third count, after stating the inducements and conspiracy, as in the first and second counts, stated the overt acts to be, by false and fraudulent means and contrivances, procuring letters of administration to be issued by the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, purporting to grant administration to Pennell, as a widow, as one of the lawful children of the said Mary Harriet Campbell; and as being administratrix of the goods and chattels of the said Mrs. Campbell, with a codicil or confirmation of a will of General Campbell, as before; and presenting such letters of administration to the East-India Company, and divers of their lawful agents in that behalf. It then negatived the pretences, as in the first count, and laid the intent to defraud Mary Harriet Campbell. The fourth count was similar, stating the intent to defraud the East-India Company. The fifth count, after similar inducement, stated the conspiracy to be by "false, fraudulent, deceitful, and unlawful ways, means, and contrivances, unlawfully, deceitfully, and fraudulently, to cause and procure certain letters of administration, purporting to be a grant of administration, with a certain codicil or confirmation of a will annexed, of the estate and effects left unadministered by the said Mary Harriet Campbell, as being deceased, of the said Charles Campbell, to the said Sophia Pennell, as a widow, and as one of the lawful children of the said Mary Harriet Campbell, as being deceased, for the purpose of obtaining, and with intent then and there unjustly and unlawfully to obtain and receive, the said last-mentioned interest or share of and in the said sum of 9651. East-India Stock, and all interest and dividends thereupon due and payable, to and for the use of the said Sophia Pennell." The overt acts were stated as in the third and fourth counts. The intent was laid to defraud the said Mary Harriet Campbell. The sixth count was the same, but with the intent to defraud the East-India Company. The seventh and eighth counts [THE QUEEN varied the name of the person injured, but set out no overt acts, merely charging a conspiracy. v. WRIGHT and The objections were, that the conspiracy alleged was described in terms too vague and general, and that the party whom it was the object of the conspiracy to defraud, was not distinctly pointed out. In Trinity Term Peacock shewed cause. Hurlstone was heard insupport. The following cases were cited:-Rex v. Richardson (1 M. & R. 402), Rex v. Gill (2 B. & Ald. 204), Rex v. Seward (1 A. & E. 706), King v. The Queen (14 L. J. 172, M. C.), Reg. v. Parker (3 Q. B. 292). Cur, adv. vult. At the sittings after Trinity Term, judgment was given as follows: LORD DENMAN, C. J.-We do not think it necessary to enter into any discussion on the seventh and eighth counts, because we think the first six are perfectly good; in them the statement of the offence is so interwoven with the description of the overt acts, that there is an indictable offence well laid, on which the Court can pronounce judgment. We must not be understood, however, as binding ourselves to recognize, on any future occasion, what we are now doing with the seventh and eighth counts; we merely think it unnecessary to discuss them; the rule, therefore, will be discharged as to the first six counts, and be absolute as to the remainder. Rule accordingly. THE QUEEN V. COLE. NORTHERN CIRCUIT. YORK WINTER ASSIZES, 1847. (Before Mr. Justice PATTESON and Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.) THE QUEEN V. COLE. (a) Larceny. A. hiring a horse and riding it away from a livery-stable, and afterwards selling it, cannot be convicted of larceny unless he had the intention of stealing the horse when he originally hired it, and that is a question for the jury. T THE prisoner was indicted for having, on the 15th of July, at Muit. Boothby, for the prosecution. Overend, for the prisoner. It appeared that the prosecutor was a livery-stable keeper at Halifax. The prisoner came to his stable on the 15th of July, and wished to hire a horse and gig to go to Bradford. The prosecutor told him he had not a gig at liberty, and advised him to go else(a) Reported by T. CAMPBELL FOSTER, Esq., Barrister-at-law. V. COLE. where. In about ten minutes the prisoner returned (the master THE QUEEN having meanwhile gone out), and told the groom that a saddle-horse would do as well; that he only wanted to go to Bradford and back. The groom, accordingly, saddled him a horse, and lent him a whip. The prisoner rode the horse to the Pack Horse Inn, in Leeds, a town beyond Bradford, and afterwards shewed him to a person who appeared anxious to buy him. The ostler was afterwards desired by the prisoner to take the horse down to the Palace Inn, in Leeds, which he did. The prisoner there agreed to sell the horse to a person named Randall for 5l., which he received, and for which he gave a receipt. Bradford is not in the direct road from Halifax to Leeds. Overend, for the prisoner, submitted to the jury that there was no evidence of a felonious intent in the original hiring of the horse by the prisoner; and that if the prisoner had not the intention of stealing the horse when he hired it, but that such intention came afterwards into his head, however morally wrong such intention might be, it was not a felony according to law. He suggested that the prisoner was in want of money, and probably the intention of selling the horse was prompted by that want, after the horse had been hired. PATTESON, J., in summing up, told the jury that the question really was, whether the prisoner had the intention of stealing the horse at the time when he took it, or whether that intention came into his mind afterwards. If they were of opinion that he had such intention originally, they would find him guilty. If they thought the intention came into his head afterwards, they would acquit him. The jury acquitted the prisoner. (a) COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. July 2, 1847. KEEN V. THE QUEEN. (b) Court of Quarter Sessions-Jurisdiction—Continuing authority from session to Indictments for assault having been preferred at one sessions, the defendant appeared (a) See Pear's case (2 East's P. C. 685). In Charlewood's case (2 East's P. C. 689), which was a case of hiring a horse, and afterwards selling it, the Court, in charging the jury, said, "If they thought the prisoner at the time of hiring the horse for the purpose of going to Barnet, really intended to go there, but finding himself in possession of the horse, afterwards determined to convert it to his own use instead of proceeding to the place, it would not amount to a felonious taking." And see Semple's case (2 East's P. C. 691; and 1 Leach, 420). (b) Reported by A. BITTLESTON, Esq., Barrister-at-law. KEEN 2. THE QUEEN. that "it was considered and adjudged" by the Court that the defendant should enter into recognizances to appear at the next sessions and receive judgment, and that the judgment upon the indictment was respited : Held, that although in the usual form of a judgment, the proceeding then taken was a respiting of the judgment only, and that therefore the record did not shew that two judgments had been given by the Court. ER RROR from the Court of Quarter Sessions for the county of Essex. The record, so for as is material to the present case, was as follows:-" Be it remembered, that at the general quarter sessions of the peace of our Sovereign_Lady the Queen, holden at Chelmsford, in and for the county of Essex, on, &c. [Tuesday, the 6th of January, 1846], before J. D., Esq., N. C. B., Esq., and others, their companions, justices, &c., and from thence continued, by several adjournments, to the Shire House in Chelmsford aforesaid, on Tuesday the 17th day of February, in the year aforesaid, &c., by the oath of John Brewitt, &c., good and lawful men of the said county, qualified according to law, now here sworn and charged to inquire, for our said Lady the Queen, for the county aforesaid, it is presented in manner and form firstly, secondly, and thirdly hereinafter mentioned (that is to say): And firstly it is presented, in manner and form following (that is to say): Essex, to wit.-The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath, present, that John Keen, late of, &c., on, &c., with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in and upon one Sophia Keen, the wife of the said John Keen, &c., did unlawfully and violently make an assault, and her, the said Sophia Keen, did then and there unlawfully, maliciously, and violently beat and ill-treat, &c. [setting out several other counts of the same indictment and two other indictments, preferred at the same time, for similar offences]. Wherefore the sheriff, &c., is commanded, &c., that he cause the said John Keen to come before the justices of our said Lady the Queen last above named, to answer our said Lady the Queen concerning the premises in the said several indictments, &c.; and the said indictments the justices last above named afterwards, to wit, at the said general quarter sessions, &c. [on the 17th of February, 1846], by their proper hands, do deliver here in court, in form of law to be determined. And thereupon, at the same general quarter sessions of the peace, &c., comes the said John Keen, in his own proper person, and forthwith, concerning the premises in the said three several indictments above specified and charged on him, being asked in what manner he will be acquitted thereof, the said John Keen says that he is guilty thereof. Whereupon, all and singular the premises being seen, and fully understood by the Court here, it is considered and adjudged by the Court here, that the said John Keen do enter into recognizance to our Lady the Queen, in the sum of 2001., and two sureties in the sum of 1007. each, to appear and receive the judgment of the Court, at the next general quarter sessions of the peace to be holden in and for the said county, if called upon, and to keep the peace towards the Queen and all her liege subjects, and especially towards Sophia Keen, his wife, for the space of twelve calendar months. And thereupon the said John Keen, together with W. A., of, &c., and T. W., of, &c., sureties, &c., severally acknowledge themselves to be indebted to our Sovereign |