1776. MINION'S CASE. THE first count of the indictment on 25 Edw. III. c. 2. stated that Joseph Harris, &c. Thomas Minion, &c. and HARRIS AND Charles Hall, on the 15 December 1775, one piece of money of this realm called a shilling, falsely, deceitfully, feloniously and traiterously did forge and counterfeit against the duty of their allegiance, against the peace, &c. and against the form of the statute, &c. There was a second count on the 8 & 9 Will. III. c. 26. s. 4. which charged that they one piece of false, feigned and counterfeit money and coin, to the likeness and similitude of the good, legal, and current money and silver coin of this realm called a shilling, did falsely and deceitfully, feloniously and traiterously forge, counterfeit and coin against the duty of their allegiance, and against the sta See the Case of Rex v. tute. To support these charges the following facts were given in evidence. At the time the prisoners were apprehended Minion was sitting by the fire-side. Harris had a pair of scissars and some metal in his hand, which he was clipping into slips of more than an inch broad. There was a crucible on the fire, and metal melting in it, a pair scales and weights, with some good silver lying by them. In a box, with the lid open, were the flasks and moulds, and several pieces of base metal which appeared to have been cast in the moulds, for the impression upon some of them exactly resembled that on one of the good shillings which was lying near them. In these pieces of base metal there is a small mixture of good silver, which, by heating them, and then immersing them in aqua fortis and water, is drawn out upon the surface of the metal. But no one piece of base metal at present found was in such a state as to make it passable; for to make such pieces of basc metal completely resemble shillings, they must be rubbed, filed, and thrown into aqua fortis. THE learned Judge said, that he thought the first count in this indictment was new and singular: and upon enquiry it appeared, that it had been now introduced for the first time; and that in two instances which had lately happened, where the indictment consisted of one count only, similar to the second count in the present indictment, the Jury, upon 1776. MINION'S evidence like the present, had been directed to acquit the prisoners. Upon the authority of these two determinations his Lordship told the Jury, that in his idea the different for- HARRIS AND mation of the indictment could not vary the nature of the offence, and therefore they ought to find their verdict Not Guilty. The Jury, however, found the prisoners Guilty on the first count, and acquitted them on the second. THE QUESTION submitted to the JUDGES was, Whether, ander these circumstances, the conviction was proper? and on the first day of Hilary Term 1776, they were unanimously of opinion, that it was not. See Denton's Case, June Sess. 1789. THE KING against STEPHEN self. CASE LXXIV. AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1776, Stephen Self If a master, by was tried before MR. SERJEANT GLYNN, Recorder, for the wilful murder of William Kingrose, his apprentice, by means premeditated negligence or harsh usage, cause the death of his apprentice, it 226. of famine and harsh treatment. THE final cause of the death of the deceased was a morti- is murder. fication in his legs, the seeds of which had originated from S. C. 1 East, the impoverished state of his blood, occasioned by a long confinement on bread and water in Bridewell. There was strong evidence, however, that neglected chilblains, and a series of very rigorous and cruel usage, which he had for a Palmer, 548. long time endured from his master, had been the efficient 9 St. Tr. 146 cause of his decease. Ir was therefore left to the Jury to consider from which of these two causes the death proceeded; with an observation, that if they thought it had proceeded from the passive negligence or active severity of his master, subsequent to his confinement in Bridewell, the law would imply malice, and the offence would be murder (a). (a) See the trial of William Wade for the murder of Constance Frost, his apprentice, for refusing to allow and give, or to permit and suffer to be allowed and given, sufficient food, drink and necessaries to support life, Old Bailey, February Session 1784; and Patmore's Case, Old Bailey, February Session 1789. Co. Lit. 295. 432. to 251. Pullen, 122. 90. 1 Hawk. P. C. Staund. 17. Stra. 856, 884. Ld. Ray. 143. 118, 9.Co. 81. 1776. THE JURY, feeling the atrociousness of the prisoner's conduct, but doubting whether it had been the cause of death, SELF'S CASE. found him guilty of manslaughter. THE RECORDER hesitated a short time as to the propriety of this verdict; but in favorem vitæ it was at length recorded, and the case referred, by the concurrence of MR. JUSTICE GOULD and MR. BARON HOTHAM, to the consideration of the JUDGes. This does not accord with Mr. Justice Gould's account of it (a). THE JUDGES were clearly of opinion that there was no ground for the verdict, for that it was either murder, or no offence at all; but as the Jury had thought proper to find it manslaughter, they would not meddle with it; and the prisoner was accordingly burnt in the hand and discharged. (a) MR. JUSTICE GOULD's note of this case is that the prisoner upon his apprentice returning to him from Bridewell, whither he had been sent for misbehaviour, in a lousy and distempered condition, did not take that care of him which his situation required; and which he might have done; the apprentice not having been suffered to be in a bed on account of the vermin, but being made to lie on the boards, without covering and without common medical care; that the medical persons who were examined in this case were of opinion that the boy's death was most probably occasioned by his ill treatment in Bridewell, and the want of care when he went home; and they inclined to think that if he had been properly treated when he came home he might have recovered; that though some harsh expressions were proved to have been spoken by the prisoner to the boy, yet there was no evidence of any personal violence having been used by the prisoner; and it was proved that the apprentice had had sufficient sustenance; that the prisoner had a general good character for treating his apprentices with humanity; and that he had made application to get this boy into the hospital: That under these circumstances THE RECORDER left it to the Jury to consider whether his death was occasioned by the ill treatment he received from his master after returning from Bridewell; and whether that ill treatment amounted to evidence of malice; in which case they were to find him guilty of murder; telling them at the same time, with the concurrence of GOULD J. and HOTHAM B. that if they thought otherwise, yet as it appeared that the prisoner's conduct towards his apprentice was highly blameable and improper, they might under all these circumstances find him guilty of Manslaughter; which they did; and that upon the question being afterwards put to THE JUDGES whether the verdict was well found, they all agreed that the prisoner should be burnt in the hand and discharged. S. C. 1 East, 227. 1776. THE KING against THOMAS JONES. CASE LXXV. AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1776, Thomas Jones, The crime of otherwise Evans, was indicted for a highway robbery. robbery may be committed by obtaining money from a man by threatening to charge him with having been guilty of practices. Hickman's THE prosecutor, Mitchel Newman, who, from the evidence of several witnesses, bore an extraordinary good character, and who was totally unacquainted with the prisoner, went on the 29th September 1775, to the upper gallery of Covent-garden Play-house: The crowd was great, and in sodomitical his eagerness to get a good seat, the prosecutor's hand, he pressed before the prisoner, touched the prisoner's breeches. The prisoner followed Newman to several parts of the gallery, and took his seat by him. During the play, a young man who sat on the other side of Newman, asked him what it was o'clock? and soon afterwards the prisoner enquired whether the young man was of his company? to which Newman replied that he was not; and this was all the conversation that passed between them during the play. The prisoner followed Newman out of the house, and as they were crossing Bow-street, said to him, "Won't you have some"thing to drink after the heat?" to which the prosecutor assenting, they went together into a public-house in Bowstreet, and called for a pot of porter: The prosecutor drank the prisoner's health, and then gave him the pot, which he took, saying, "I thank you;" and having drank what remained in it to the prosecutor's health, immediately turned towards him with a kind of grin, and asked him what he meant by the liberties he had taken with his person in the play-house? The prosecutor replied, that he knew of no liberties being taken; upon which the prisoner replied, "Damn you, Sir, but you did, and there were several re66 putable merchants in the house who will take their oaths "of it!" The prosecutor being surprised by, and greatly alarmed at this accusation, immediately arose from the seat, and paying for the porter, went out of the house, saying to the prisoner, "I do not know what you mean by all this!" The prisoner followed him out, and observing the street 1776. JONES'S CASE. crowded, hallooed out, "Damn you, Sir, stop! for if you "offer to run, I will raise a mob about you," and seizing him violently by the arm, exclaimed, "Damn you, Sir! "this is not to be borne! you have offered an indignity to "me, and nothing can satisfy it!"-The prosecutor, terrified by these expressions, and the manner in which they were uttered, replied, "For God's sake, what do you want? What "would you have me do?"-" A present, a present-you "must make me a present," said the prisoner, moderating the tone of his voice. "A present of what?" said the prosecutor." Come, come," replied the prisoner, "what money "have you?-How much can you give me now?"-The prosecutor said, "I have but a little; but what I have got you "shall have ;" and he accordingly gave him three guineas and twelve shillings. The prisoner, as he took it, asked him whether it was all he had? and on being answered in the affirmative, said, "Damn it, Sir, this is not enough-I must "have a further sum." The prisoner, during the whole of this conversation, held the prosecutor fast by the arm, and thereby defeated the several efforts he made to get away; but at length the prisoner suffered him to walk on, he still accompanying him, and keeping tight hold of his arm, and which the prosecutor swore put him into great fear for the safety of his person. In this manner they walked down Russel-street, into Bridges-street, when the prisoner said, “I "believe I know you, Sir; I have some friends at a coffee"house at the bottom of the street; if you will go with me "there we will then settle this business." The prosecutor refused to go, and denied to his face that he had ever seen him before, upon which the prisoner gave his arm a twist, and let him go. The prosecutor, however, had not run far before the prisoner ran after him, and overtaking him just as he got into Queen-street, asked him if he would meet him the next day at a coffee-house near Temple-bar? and on his refusing so to do, insisted upon knowing his name, and where he lived; but on the prosecutor refusing to comply, he swore that he would know, and actually followed him to the door of his lodgings, where he called early the ensuing morning, |