1779. THE KING against BURY. CASE XCIX. Assize has not a lien upon the records in his custody for his fees; and if he draw an indictment IN the King's Bench, Easter Term 19 Geo. III. a rule had A Clerk of been obtained to shew cause why an attachment should not issue against the defendant, who was Clerk of Assize on the Norfolk Circuit, for not obeying a writ of Certiorari to remove an indictment for murder, and a special verdict founded upon it (1). On shewing cause against this rule, it was insisted by the defendant's Counsel, that he had a right to retain the record till he should be paid his fees for drawing, ingrossing, &c. which the attorney for the prisoner had refused to do, on the ground of their being exorbitant. LORD MANSFIELD said, he should be very unwilling to determine that a Clerk of Assize has a lien on the records of the Court for his fees, for that he foresaw great inconvenience from such a doctrine. It was therefore referred to the Master and on the Attorney for the prisoner undertaking to pay as much as he should report to be due, the record was returned into Court, and the rule for the attachment discharged (a). with unneces sary prolixity, he may be or dered to pay the extraordi nary expence.. (1) Borthwick's Case, Dougl. 197. (a) In the same Term the Court referred an indictment for perjury 1 Mod. 249. against May, which had been removed from Hicks's Hall, to the Master, to see what part of the record was unnecessary; and made an order that the Clerk of the Peace should pay the expence incurred by such unnecessary part.-N. B. It was drawn to an exorbitant length, by stating all the continuances on the former prosecution, &c. which is rendered unne cessary by the express words of the 23 Geo. II. c. 11. s. 1. THE KING against HEDGES. CASE C AT the Old Bailey May Session 1779, the prisoner was What shall be indicted for stealing six light glazed window-sashes. considered a fixture to the THE window-frames from which they were taken were fixed freehold. into their proper places, but the sashes were neither hung nor S. C. 2 East, 590, notis. (1) Mr. Jus- Mr. Serjeant 1779. beaded in the frames, but were fastened in by laths nailed across the frames to prevent their falling out. THE COURT (1) held they were not fixed to the freehold. CASE CI. Parole evi dence cannot be received of the information given before a Magistrate, either in felony or THE KING against FEARSHIRE. AT the Sittings of the King's Bench in Middlesex after THE Counsel for the prosecution attempted to give parole evidence of the information which had been given against misdemeanor, the defendant before a Justice of the Peace, and on which unless evidence be given the Justice had granted a warrant to apprehend the de that it was not fendant. reduced into writing. See Rex v. Jacobs, post, Old Bailey February Session, 1784. See 1 and 2 Phil. & Mar. c. 13. s. 4. and 2 and 3 Phil. & Mar. c. 10. See Rex v. DUNNING, for the defendant, objected to the admission of this evidence, on the ground, that as it was the duty of the Magistrate to take informations in writing, the presumption of law was, that he had taken the information in writing in the present case; and that as the written information, which was the best evidence, was not produced, no parole testimony could be admitted to supply the want of it. THE Counsel for the Crown replied, That neither the practice of Magistrates, nor the statutes of Philip and Mary, required the information of witnesses to be taken in writing, except in cases of treason, felony, or very high and aggravated misdemeanors; and that in misdemeanors of light complexion, like the present, the constant practice was, to take the parole evidence of the witness upon oath, and to dispense with the form of reducing it into writing. LORD MANSFIELD.-It is the duty of the Magistrate to take all charges, of whatsoever nature, kind, or complexion they may be, in writing. In the present case parole testimony cannot, at any rate, be given of the subject-matter of 1779. CASE. the information, unless it be previously shewn that the informant did not give his deposition on oath; and that his information was not reduced into writing. But I am of FEARSHIRE'S opinion, that, as it is the indispensable duty of every Justice of Peace to take the information in writing in all cases, the presumption is, that he has in this case done his duty, by taking it in writing, and therefore the parole evidence now offered ought not to be received. THE parole testimony was accordingly rejected, and the defendant was acquitted in consequence of this objection. THE APPRENTICES' CASE. Easter Term, 1779. CASE CII MR. DUNNING, on the third of May 1779, moved the The Chief Court of King's Bench for a writ of Habeas Corpus to bring up two young men from The Nore, who had been impressed and put on board the tender lying at that place. Justice of the King's Bench may grant his warrant to bring up the bodies of im THE several affidavits on which the application was made, pressed Approved them to be apprentices working daily under their prentices. indentures in their respective trades, and in the employment Ann. c. 6. of their masters. LORD MANSFIELD.-The press-master has acted very improperly. Instead of granting you a Habeas Corpus, I shall, upon this occasion, go a shorter way to work, and grant you my warrant as Chief Justice for bringing them before me, they being clearly apprentices not liable to be impressed. I was not acquainted with this authority until some years ago. I discovered it in reading some old Law Books, and I went to LORD HARDWICKE and consulted him on it, and he agreed that it was in the power of this Court to grant a warrant in such case of an apprentice, and said that LORD CHIEF JUSTICE HOLT was of the same opinion, and that there were several precedents for it. See 2 and s s. 15 and 17. 1779. THE APPREN TICES' CASE. AND his Lordship ordered the regular steps to be taken to obtain the warrant (a). (a) See Rex v. Reynolds, 6 Term Rep. 497. and Rex v. Edwards, 7 Term Rep. 745. in which the power of the Chief Justice upon this subject is recognized, and in which it is settled that a master cannot sue out an Habeas Corpus to bring up the body of his impressed apprentice; his remedy in such case being by civil action against the aggressor: but the apprentice himself may obtain the writ, though the master cannot.-Same point ex parte Lansdown, 5 East's Term Rep. 38.; and Eades put, ibid. 39, notis. V. Vaude CASE CIII. ment for for gery, the THE KING against WILLIAM JONES. In an indict- AT Chelmsford, 21st July, 1779, William Jones, otherwise Thorowgood, was indicted before LORD MANSFIELD, on the statute 15 Geo. II. c. 23. s. 11. for that he, having in his custody a certain forged paper-writing, purporting to be A BANK-NOTE (describing it) as followeth; that is to say, words "purporting to be a bank-note," mean that the instrument upon the face of it appears to be a banknote; and the want of such appearance cannot be supplied by the representation of the party uttering it. "No. F. 946, " I PROMISE TO PAY John Wilson, Esq. OR BEArer, Ten "POUNDS. "£. Ten. "ENT. John Jones. "London, March 4, 1776. "For Self and Company of my "Bank in England." S. C. Dougl. did dispose of and put away the said forged paper-writing 302. S. C. 2 East, 883. as and for a good and true bank-note, well knowing the same to be forged. There were other counts charging it to be-FIRST, A certain forged and counterfeited note: SгCONDLY, A forged paper-writing: and THIRDLY, a paperwriting purporting to be a promissory note for payment of money: and laying the offence to have been committed, first, with an intention to defraud the Bank of England; and secondly, with an intention to defraud James Rayner. THE Jury acquitted the prisoner on those counts which charged an intent to defraud the Bank of England; and as to the other counts, they found a special verdict to the fol- ON Wednesday, 24th November 1779, this special verdict was argued in the Court of King's Bench by Fielding on the part of the prosecution, and by Mingay on the part of the prisoner. And the question was, Whether this paper-writing purported to be a bank-note ? THE COURT were of opinion, That the representation which the prisoner had made to Rayner, viz. That it was a 1779. JONES'S CASE. |