CHAPTER THE FIFTY-FIRST. OF THE DESTROYING AND DAMAGING MINES AND MINE-ENGINES. THE offence of setting fire to any coal-mine has been mentioned in a former chapter. (a) intent to des troy the mine. The 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 6, enacts, "that if any person shall 7 & 8 Geo 4, unlawfully and maliciously (b) cause any water to be conveyed into c. 30, s. 6. Drowning any any mine, or into any subterraneous passage communicating there-in mine or filling with, with intent thereby to destroy or damage such mine, or to up any shaft, hinder or delay the working thereof; or shall, with the like intent, c., with unlawfully and maliciously pull down, fill up, or obstruct any airway, water-way, drain, pit, level, or shaft, of or belonging to any mine; every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two 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: provided always, that this provision shall not extend to any damage committed under ground by any owner of any adjoining mine, in working the same, or by any person duly employed in such working." (c) Sec. 7. any engine, By sec. 7, "if any person shall unlawfully and maliciously (6) pull down or destroy, or damage, with intent to destroy or to render useless, any steam-engine or other engine for sinking, draining, or working any mine, or any staith, building, or erection used in con- used in any ducting the business of any mine, or any bridge, waggon-way, or mine. trunk for conveying minerals from any mine, whether such engine, staith, building, erection, bridge, waggon-way, or trunk be completed or in an unfinished state, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to any of the punishments which the Court may award, as hereinbefore last mentioned." We have seen that where one of the owners of adjoining mines Claim of right. asserting that an airway belongs to him, directs his workmen to stop it up, and they acting bona fide, and believing that he has a right to give such an order, do so, they are not guilty of felony for stopping up the airway, even though the master knew that he had no right to it. But if any of the workmen knew that the stopping of the air (a) Ante, p. 553. (b) See sec. 25, ante, p. 544. (c) See sec. 26, ante, p. 546, as to principals in the second degree and accessories, and sec. 27, and the 1 Vict. c. 90, s. 5, Wrongfully setting a steam engine in motion, whereby it is damaged. What is an "erection. "1 way was a malicious act of his master, such workman would be guilty of felony. (d) If a steam engine be set in motion without any machinery attached to it, with intent to damage it or render it useless, the case is within the statute. Upon an indictment for maliciously damaging a steam engine with intent, as charged in one count, to destroy, as charged in another, to render it useless, it appeared that the steam engine was used to bring up coals from the shaft of one mine, and water from another, and that it was stopped and locked up in the evening, and that the prisoners in the night got into the engine house and set the engine going, and from its having no machinery attached to it, the engine worked with greater velocity, and the wheels were some of them thrown out of cog, so that the engine was damaged to the amount of 10%., and would have been injured to a much greater extent, if the mischief had not been discovered and the engine stopped. Gurney, B., left it to the jury to say whether the intent of the prisoners was to destroy the engine or to render it useless; and held that if the prisoners had either of those intents the case came within the provisions of the statute. Damaging a drum moved by a steam engine is not damaging the steam engine, but damaging a scaffolding placed across the shaft of part of a steam a mine, in order to work a level, is damaging an "erection"" used in engine. What is not conducting the business of a mine." Upon an indictment founded on the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 7, containing counts for damaging an engine employed in working a mine with intent to destroy it, and for damaging a certain erection used in the working a mine, with intent to destroy it, it appeared that a coal mine was worked by a steam engine, which caused a cylinder, called a drum, to revolve and take up the rope as the coal was drawn from the mine. At the other end of the rope was a heavy weight, called a bull, which the prisoners threw into the shaft of the mine, and by the sudden jerk caused the drum to be strained and injured. The bottom of the shaft was filled with water, and the owner of the mine had caused a scaffold to be erected at some distance above the bottom of the mine, for the purpose of working a vein of coal that was on a level with the scaffold, and the prisoners had thrown a sort of waggon, called a corve, down the shaft, whereby the scaffold was much injured. It was objected, first, that as the drum was no part of the steam engine, the counts charging the damaging the steam engine could not be supported; secondly, that the scaffolding was not an "erection" within the meaning of the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 7, as the word "erection" being used in conjunction with the words "staith or building" must be taken to mean an erection ejusdem generis; and it was held that the damaging the drum did not support the counts charging the damaging the steam engine, but it was also held that the scaffolding was an erection within the meaning of the statute; the word "erection" being clearly meant to denote something different from a building. (e) (d) Reg. v Norris, 9 C. & P. 241. See Rex v. Tacey, post, p. 586. (e) Reg. v. Whittingham, 9 C. & P. 234, Patteson, J. CHAPTER THE FIFTY-SECOND. OF DESTROYING AND DAMAGING ARTICLES IN A COURSE OF MANU facture, and OF DESTROYING, &C. IMPLEMENTS AND MACHINERY. or any ma &c. THE 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 3, enacts, "that if any person shall 7 & 8 Geo. 4, unlawfully and maliciously (a) cut, break, or destroy, or damage with c. 30, s. 3. intent to destroy or to render useless, any goods or article of silk, Destroying woollen, linen, or cotton, or of any one or more of those materials linen, or cotmixed with each other, or mixed with any other material, or any ton goods in framework-knitted piece, stocking, hose, or lace respectively, being the loom, &c., in the loom or frame, or on any machine or engine, or on the rack chinery belongor tenters, or in any stage, process, or progress of manufacture; or ing to those shall unlawfully and maliciously cut, break, or destroy, or damage manufactures, with intent to destroy or render useless, any warp or shute of silk, woollen, linen, or cotton, or of any one or more of those materials mixed with each other, or mixed with any other material, or any loom, frame, machine, engine, rack, tackle, or implement, whether fixed or moveable, prepared for or employed in carding, spinning, throwing, weaving, fulling, shearing, or otherwise manufacturing or preparing any such goods or articles; or shall by force enter into any house, shop, building, or place, with intent to commit any of the offences aforesaid, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof, 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." (b) thereby ren Upon an indictment under the 28 Geo. 3, c. 55, s. 4, (now re- Taking away pealed) for maliciously damaging a frame used for making stockings, part of a it appeared that the prisoner unscrewed, unfastened, and carried frame, and away a part, called the half-jack, from two frames used for the making dering it of stockings. The half-jack is a piece of iron, which is an essential useless. part of the frame, and when taken out the frame is rendered useless; but it may be taken out and again replaced without injury to the frame, and is sometimes so treated when the frame is taken to pieces to be cleaned. Most of the other parts of the frame may in like manner be taken out and replaced. The frames in this case were not otherwise injured than by taking away the half-jacks. It was (a) See sec. 25, ante, p. 544. (b) See sec. 27, and the 1 Vict. c. 90, s. 5, ante, p. 547, as to hard labour and so litary confinement; and sec. 26, ante, objected, that this removal of the half-jack was not a damaging of the frame within the statute, which it was contended, applied only to cases of breaking, bending, or straining, some part of the frame, and not to the removal of a part, though that part might be an essential part. But upon a case reserved, the Judges were unanimously of opinion that the taking out and carrying away the half-jack, was a damaging the frame within the meaning of the 28 Geo. 3, as it made the frame imperfect and inoperative. (c) The 22 Geo. 3, c. 40, s. 1, made it a capital felony to break into any house, &c., with intent to destroy "any serge or other woollen goods in the loom, or any tools employed in the making thereof," and it was held, that destroying part of a loom did not come within the meaning of that statute. (d) The first count charged the prisoners with maliciously damaging 100 pieces of worsted stuff, "in a certain process of manufacture," with intent to destroy the same. Other counts stated the goods to be in "a certain stage of manufacture," and others stated them to be "in the progress of manufacture." The prosecutors were dyers, and received the stuffs from the manufacturer after the texture was complete, but while they were still in an unmarketable state. The stuffs which were damaged by the prisoners were, at that time, upon rollers, immersed in liquid, and in the actual process of being dyed; and the injury was done by throwing deleterious ingredients upon the stuffs themselves, and into the liquid in which they were immersed. For the prisoners it was contended, that as the article damaged was at the time of the damage being done in a complete state, so far as the manufacturing and texture were concerned, and only required dyeing to fit it for the market, the case did not come within the words of the act. For the prosecution it was submitted, that the legislature could not have intended to withdraw the protection of the act, until the manufacture was so complete that the articles were fit for immediate sale. Coleridge, J., (after consulting with Parke, B.) said that they were both of opinion that the true construction of the act was that contended for by the prosecutor; he therefore overruled the objection, and he referred to the provision in the same section relating to goods on "the rack or tenters," as shewing that the act contemplated injuries to goods subsequent to the completion of the texture. (e) The indictment stated that the prisoner six warps of linen yarn of the goods of A. B. unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously did damage by throwing the said warps of linen yarn with great force unto and upon the ground, &c. with intent to render the same useless; against the form, &c. After conviction a writ of error was brought, and the errors assigned were, that it did not appear by the count that the said warps were, at the time of the damage, goods in any stage of manufacture, or that they were prepared for being woven or manufactured into, or were employed in the weaving or manufacturing, such goods, &c.; and it was contended that the indictment did not state any offence within the statute, because the damaging warps was made an offence only where such warps had been prepared for, any (c) Rex v. Tacey, Russ. & Ry. 452. this case. (e) Rex v. Woodhead, 1 M. & Rob. 549. or employed in spinning, &c., or otherwise manufacturing the goods mentioned in the previous part of the section; and that the indictment did not allege that the warps of linen were so prepared or employed. Lord Tenterden, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the Court, said, "We are of opinion, on a careful examination of the statute, that it was not necessary to allege specifically in the count that the warps therein mentioned were prepared for or employed in carding, spinning, weaving, &c., or otherwise manufacturing goods. The third section of 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, consists of three branches. The first branch enacts, that if any person shall unlawfully and maliciously damage with intent to destroy, any goods therein described, being in the loom, &c., he shall be guilty of felony. Now in an indictment for an offence against that enactment, it would be undoubtedly necessary to allege that the goods were at the time of the damage in the loom, &c., because it was not the intention of the legislature to make it an offence to destroy such goods wherever found, but to protect them only while they were in a course of manufacture. The same observation applies to the latter part of the second branch of the section, which makes it an offence to damage or break any loom prepared for or employed in manufacturing, &c.; it would not be sufficient in an indictment, framed upon that provision of the statute, to charge the mere destruction of a loom, without adding that it was one prepared or employed in some of the ways therein described, for the count then would be too general. But as to the damaging of any warp or shute of silk, woollen, or linen, the question may, on the words of the act, admit of some doubt. The whole sentence is, "If any person shall unlawfully and maliciously damage, &c. with intent to destroy, any warp or shute of silk, woollen, linen, &c., or any loom, frame, &c. prepared for or employed in carding, spinning, weaving," &c.; and the question is, if the words "prepared for or employed," &c., are to be considered as referring to all the preceding words, or to those only denoting the implements of manufacture. That must be ascertained by looking at the subject matter of the enactment and the object which the legislature had in view. That object in the first branch of the section was, the protection of goods while in the course of manufacture; in the second, the protection of the warp or shute, and of the machinery and implements, when they were prepared for or employed in the production of goods. Now as to the latter, it is necessary, with a view to the limited purpose which the legislature had in view, that the concluding words should apply to them; but not so as to the warp, because a warp is a denomination of some kind of thread prepared to be woven and used in manufacture; it is in itself something "prepared for manufacturing goods." We were referred in the argument to former acts of Parliament in pari materia which had been repealed, and it was said, that under some of those acts, the word warp was so connected with the words importing preparation for manufacture, that a similar connection must be understood here, and consequently, it was necessary that they should be so connected in an indictment on the present clause. To the party indicted that must, at all events, be immaterial, because the warp must be something already prepared for manufacture; and therefore the proof would be the same, whether the indictment contained such an allegation or not; but in the statute, 4 Geo. 4, c. 46, the word warp is used absolutely by itself, without |