1784. PALMER'S CASE. of which a mark appears resembling the mark which the Act requires, is evidently " paper liable to the duties," because the preparation of thus marking it discovers the purpose for which it is designed. Upon the papers mentioned in the indictment, there appears a false stamp or impression, resembling the true stamp which the law requires for receipts: this discovers the use for which they were destined and prepared, and brings them within the general words of the Act, "paper "liable to the said duties." The JUDGES are therefore unanimously of opinion, that the prisoner was properly convicted; for that the words " paper liable to the said duties" are to be applied, according to the subject-matter, to such paper which from the counterfeit mark upon it, appears to be prepared to be used, as if the mark were genuine, for a receipt. IN January Session 1785, Ann Jones was convicted at the Old Bailey on the same statute; but her judgment was respited until the above determination was known. BOTH the prisoners received sentence of death. 1785. CASE CLXXIII. THE KING against WILLIAM TAYLOR. The coach- AT the Old Bailey January Session 1785, William Taylor to be the property of the coach-master. S. C. 2 East, 653. THE prosecutor, John Whitworth, was a coach-master, and had let a pair of horses on a job to the lady to whom the coach from which the property was stolen, belonged. The coach, at the time the things were taken away from it by the prisoner, stood in Whitworth's yard, in a coach-house belonging to him, and he said that it was entirely under his care, and that he considered himself answerable to the lady for every thing belonging to it. IT was objected, that the property stolen ought to have been laid as the property of the lady, and not of the coach master. MR. RECORDER consulted EYRE, Chief Baron, and АsнHURST and HEATH, Justices; and they were all clearly of opinion that it was well laid; and the case of Robert Statham was remembered, who, at the Old Bailey in June Session 1773, had been convicted before MR. JUSTICE ASTON of stealing a chariot-glass from a lady's chariot, which had been put up at a coach-yard in Chelsea, while the owner of it was at Ranelagh, and the property was laid to be in the master of the yard where the chariot had been put up (a). (a) So in the case of Jane Todd, in July Session 1711, it was held by L. C. J. EYRE and L. C. B. WARD, that in the case of goods belonging to a guest stolen at an inn, they may be laid to be the property either of the innkeeper or the guest.-Burnet's MS. So also in the case of Ralph Packer, at the Old Bailey in April Session 1714, it was held by L. C. J. PARKER, BURY, B. and TRACY, J. that goods stolen from a washerwoman, who takes in the linen of other persons to wash, may be laid to be her property; for persons of this description have a possessory property, and are answerable to their employers, and could all maintain an appeal of robbery or larceny, and have restitution.-2 East, C. L. 653. So in the case of one Woodward, before MR. BARON PERRYN, at LeicesLer Summer Assize 1796, it was held, on the authority of 4 Inst. 293. and 2 Roll. Abr. 551, that an agistor, who only takes in sheep to agist for another, may lay them to be his property; for he has a possession of them, and may maintain trespass against any who takes them away.—— 2 East, 653. So also the driver of a stage-coach may lay a parcel stolen from the coach to be his property, although there is no contract between him and the proprietor that he should be liable for any thing stolen,→ Rex v. Deaking and Smith, Old Bailey, April Session 1800, post, 1785. TAYLOR'S THE KING against GIBSON, MUTTON, AND WIGGS. AT the Surry Lent Assizes 1785, for Kingston, the soners Philip Gibson, John Mutton, and Henry Wiggs, CASE CLXXIV. pri- A shop adjoin were ing to a house, if under the same roof, and within the curtilage, is part of the dwelling-house, although there be no internal communication between the shop and the house, and although no person sleep in the shop. S. C. 2 East, 508. 1785. convicted before MR. BARON PERRYN, for burglary in the dwelling-house of Thomas Smith, and stealing a large quantity of goods therein, the property of John Hill, on the 15th WIGGS'S CASE. January 1785. GIBSON, MUT- THE case was reserved for the opinion of the TWELVE JUDGES upon the following statement of facts: THOMAS SMITH is the owner of a house at Esher, in which he resides himself, to which house there is a shop adjoining built close to the house; there is no internal communication between the house and the shop, and no person sleeps in the shop; the only door to the shop is in the court-yard before the house and shop. Thomas Smith let the shop, together with some apartments in the house, to the said John Hill from year to year at the clear yearly rent of six guineas, There is only one common door to the house, which communicates as well to the apartments reserved to himself by Mr. Smith, as to those he lets to John Hill. There is a court-yard before the house and shop inclosed by a brick wall three feet high, which includes both the house and shop. In this wall, next the road, is a gate or wicket fastened by a latch, which serves as a communication to both house and shop. There is only one common door to the house, which communicates as well to Smith's as to Hill's apartments. The burglary was committed in the shop. It was objected by the prisoner's Counsel, that the shop could not be considered as the dwelling-house of Thomas Smith, as laid in the indictment. Sentence was respited; and the above facts are stated for the opinion of the JUDGES. THE judgment therefore was respited until the opinion of all the JUDGES should be taken upon the objection. Ar the Summer Assizes 1785, at Croydon, after all the trials were over, the three prisoners were put to the bar, and MR. BARON EYRE stated the case upon the burglary, and said, that all the JUDGES OF ENGLAND had taken the same into consideration, and were unanimously of opinion, That the indictment was well laid in describing it to be the dwelling-house of Smith, who inhabited in one part; and 1785. TON, AND that the shop, being let with a part of the house inhabited by Hill, was still to be considered as part of the dwellinghouse of Thomas Smith, it being within the same building, GIBSON, MUTunder the same roof, and having only one door of commu- WIGGS'S CASE. nication; especially as it was within one curtilage or fence, although there was no internal communication between them. But it was admitted, that if the shop had been let by itself, Hill not living therein, burglary could not have been committed in it, for then it would have been severed from the house and therefore that the prisoners were duly convicted. THEY accordingly received sentence of Death. a THE prisoners were also indicted upon the BLACK ACT, for that they, on the 15th of January last, at Esher, with pistol loaded with gunpowder and a leaden bullet, maliciously and feloniously did shoot at John Harwood against the statute. One offender found guilty only may be on a joint three, for ma charge against liciously shooting at Ir was proved upon this trial, that Philip Gibson, one of another, conthe three prisoners, fired the pistol at John Harwood; that trary to the 9 Geo, I. c. the ball passed through his coat to his hip, and took away a 22. piece of his hip. THE JURY found Philip Gibson GUILTY; and Mutton and Wiggs NOT GUILTY. GARROW, for the prisoner, moved in arrest of judgment, that as this indictment charged the three prisoners jointly with the same act of shooting the pistol, and two had been acquitted, one only could not be convicted of the charge; unless the indictment had contained separate charges against each of the prisoners in distinct counts. BUT MR. BARON EYRE delivered no opinion on this point, which was also reserved for the opinion of the JUDGES (a). (a) It seems, however, that at the conference upon this case in Easter Term 1785, GOULD, Justice, mentioned the Coalheavers' Case, ante, page 64, Case $5, as in point; and that EYRE, Baron, said, that several might be guilty of the same act of shooting, as if a string were tied to the trigger, and they all pulled it. And in Rex v. Young and others, BULLER, Justice, in de 1785. TON, AND WIGGS'S CASE. livering his opinion, says, "Three persons were indicted on the Black Act, for shooting at the prosecutor: they were all charged with the single GIBSON, MUT- act; and the indictment was held by all the JUDGES OF ENGLAND to be sufficient." 3 Term Rep. 105. It seems, however, that the JUDGES did not determine this point of the case. But in the case of one Wells, Spring Assizes Kent 1786, it was determined that the Coalheavers' Case, ante, July Session 1768, page 64, Case 35, is good law, and that in an indictment charging several with maliciously shooting a loaded gun, one only may be found guilty. 1 East, 414. CASE CLXXV. If two persons be indicted for murder, the one as a principal in the first degree, and the other as being present, aiding and assist THE KING against TAYLOR AND SHAW. AT the Lent Assizes for the county of Sussex, in the year 1785, John Taylor and Alexander Shaw were tried before MR. BARON PERRYN. 66 THE indictment stated, "That John Taylor, late of the parish of Saint Peter the Great, otherwise Subdeanry, in "the county of Sussex, labourer, and Alexander Shaw, late ing to commit" of the same place, labourer, on the 17th day of August, "in the 24th year of the reign, &c. with force and arms at it, the Jury may find the principal in the first degree Not Guilty, and convict the principal, in the second degree. S. C. 1 East, 351. "the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in and upon "one Samuel Gillham, in the peace of God and our said "Lord the King then and there being, feloniously and wilfully, and of their malice aforethought, did make an as"sault; and that the said John Taylor a certain gun, called 66 66 a carbine, of the value of 10l. then and there charged "with gunpowder and a leaden bullet, which said gun he "the said John Taylor in both his hands then and there "had and held, and at and against the said Samuel Gillham "then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of his malice 66 aforethought, did shoot off and discharge; and that the "said John Taylor, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, by "means of shooting off and discharging the said gun, so "loaded, to, at, and against the said Samuel Gillham as "aforesaid, did then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of "his malice aforethought, strike, penetrate, and wound the " said Samuel Gillham in and upon the right side of the |