1788. WILLAN'S CASE. (1) See Gribble's Case, ante, page 240. Case 120. It was objected by the prisoner's Counsel, that this case was not within the statute of 8 Eliz. c. 4. on which the capital part of the indictment was founded; for that it had been determined in the Vauxhall Case (1) that the Act did not extend to protect the property of persons asleep (a). BUT THE COURT said, that whatever notions might have formerly prevailed upon this subject, the contrary had lately been determined by all the JUDGES of England, in the case (2) Page 443. Rex v. Thompson, (2) from the Assizes at Newcastle, and that this determination had since been confirmed by another case Case 205. of the like kind before the Recorder of Bristol. (a) The 5 Eliz. c. 4. is now repealed by 48 Geo. III. c. 129. CASE CCXXVII. not within the statutes of 4 Geo. II. c. 32. THE KING against JOHN SENIOR. A casement is AT the Old Bailey in September Sessions 1788, John Senior was indicted before MR. SERJEANT ADAIR, Recorder, present MR. JUSTICE GOULD, MR. JUSTICE GROSE, and MR. BARON HOTHAM, on the statutes 4 Geo. II. c. 32. and 21 or 21 Geo. III. c. 68. 593. S. C. 2 East, Geo. III. c. 68. for feloniously stealing one window casement, made of iron, lead, and glass, the property of the Benchers of the Middle Temple, fixed to a certain building situate in Elm Court, he having no title, or claim of title to the same. THE COURT.-The statutes upon which this indictment is founded, among the several articles which they enumerate, do not mention, "a casement." The 4 Geo. II. c. 32. says, that "whoever shall steal, rip, cut, or break, with intent to steal, any lead, iron bar, iron grate, iron palisadoes, or iron rail (a) whatsoever, being fixed (b) to any (a) Stealing iron rails fixed to a tomb in a church-yard, not connected by any building with the church, is not within the statute. Rex v. John Davis, Old Bailey, January Session, 1792. (b) See Hedges's Case, Old Bailey, May Session, 1779, ante, page 201. Case 100. dwelling-house, out-house, coach-house, stable, or other building used or occupied with such dwelling-house, or thereunto belonging, or to any other building whatsoever, or fixed in any garden, orchard, court-yard, fence, or outlet, belonging to any dwelling-house or other building, shall be transported for seven years." The 21 Geo. III. c. 68. which is an Act to explain and amend the 4 Geo. II. c. 32. recites that the stealing of copper, brass, and bell-metal affixed to dwelling-houses, &c. is not thereby expressly prohibited; gives the Court a discretionary power either to transport for seven years, or to imprison for a less time, such persons who shall "steal, rip, cut, break, or remove, with intent to steal, any copper, brass, bell-metal utensil or fixture, being fixed to any dwelling-house, out-house, coachhouse, &c." The latter Act being made to remedy the defects of the 4 Geo. II. c. 32. the words, "any copper, brass, bell-metal utensil or fixture," are to be taken as substantive nouns; and not as descriptions of the sorts of fixtures which the Legislature intended to protect. The former Act mentions every specific article by name; and as the article for the stealing of which the present indictment was preferred, is not mentioned, the prisoner must go without day. NOTE, the prisoner was indicted for a similar offence in the December Session following, before MR. JUSTICE WILSON, in stealing a casement from a stair-case in Barnard's Inn, and acquitted upon the authority of this determination. 1788. SENIOR'S THE KING against LYNN. LYNN had been convicted of a misdemeanor on an indictment which charged, that he, on such a day, had entered a certain burying-ground, and taken from a coffin buried in the earth a dead body, for the purposes of dissection. IN Michaelmas Term 1789, it was moved in the Court of King's Bench in arrest of the judgment, that this was an offence of ecclesiastical cognizance, and not indictable in any CASE CCXXVIII. Taking up dead bodies, though for the purposes of dissection, is an indictable offence. 1788. LYNN'S CASE. court of criminal jurisdiction at the common law. But by THE COURT, the offence is cognizable in a criminal court, highly indecent, and contra bonos mores; and the circumstance of its being for the purposes of dissection does not make it a less indictable offence. THE defendant, on the probability of his having committed this crime merely from ignorance, was only fined five marks. CASE CCXXIX. venanter may a Court of WILLIAM WALKER'S CASE. A Scotch Co- AT the Old Bailey in December Session 1788, present Mr. be sworn in as JUSTICE WILSON, and MR. RECORDER, William Walker, one a Juryman in of the Second Middlesex Jury, being, as he stated, a Member of the KIRK OF SCOTLAND, objected to be sworn by the usual ceremony of KISSING THE BOOK, but offered to take the oath, according to the ceremony of his own religion, by holding up his hand. Criminal Law, by the ceremony of holding up his hand, without kissing the book. THE COURT said, there was no objection to his being admitted to take the oath in this form, and he was so sworn accordingly (a). (a) Vide Mildrone's case, ante, page 412. Case 190. CASE CCXXX. Obtaining THE KING against ISAAC COCKWAINE. AT the Old Bailey in December Session 1788, Isaac Cockthe goods of a tradesman un- waine was indicted before MR. JUSTICE WILSON, for feloniously stealing two men's hats, the property of Benjamin being sent for Rankin. der a false pretence of them to shew a customer, is THE Jury found the prisoner Guilty, subject to the opifraud and not nion of THE TWELVE JUDGES on the following facts, which felony. they found specially: "That the prisoner, on the 7th November 1788, went to the shop of the prosecutor, a hatter in Leadenhall-street, with an intent unlawfully to obtain and convert to his own use the goods mentioned in the indictment; and told the said Mr. Rankin, that a Mr. Sansom who lived in a neighbouring street, was going out of town early the next morning, and wanted a new round hat, and desired that he, the said Mr. Rankin, would take some hats of that kind to shew to Mr. Sansom; that Mr. Rankin went accordingly to Mr. Sansom's in London-street; and while he was gone, the prisoner returned in about three minutes to the shop of Mr. Rankin, and said to a servant-man of Mr. Rankin's, who was in the shop when the prisoner first went there, • Your master is at our house, and he has sent me, and says you must give me the cocked hat and round hat that are in the window:' that the servant-man accordingly, then and there, delivered to the prisoner the said two hats : that the prisoner went away with the said two hats, and unlawfully converted them to his own use; and that the said Mr. Rankin did not in truth and in fact send him or any other person for the said hats (a). But whether, under these circumstances, the said Isaac Cockwaine be guilty of felony the Jurors pray the direction of the Court. And if, &c." THIS was at first intended as a special verdict, but was afterwards drawn up as a special case, and referred to the TWELVE JUDGES; and it came more than once under their consideration; but no opinion was ever given. (a) The Judges, in considering the case of Rex v. Pares, adverted to the question whether his case was at all affected by the statute 30 Geo. II. c. 24. and they were of opinion that that statute applied to all cases where goods were obtained by a false pretence of any kind, but that both the statutes of 33 Hen. VIII. c. 1. and 30 Geo. II. c. 24. are confined to cases where credit was obtained in the name of a third person, and do not extend to a case where a man on his own account gets goods with an intention to steal them; that where an original intention to steal appears, the statutes do not apply; where no such intent appears, if the means mentioned in the statutes are made use of, the Legislature had made the offender answerable criminally, who before, by the common law of the land, was only answerable civilly. See 2 East, P. C. 689. and the observations of MR. BARON EYRE, ibid. in notis, 1788. COCKWAINE'S CASE. 1788. THE prisoner remained in Newgate in February Session 1790, after which he received A PARDON, and before the COCKWAINE'S April Session following he was discharged. CASE. 1789.. CASE CCXXXI. THE KING against WILLIAM WOODCOCK. In murder, the AT the Old Bailey January Session 1789, William Wood declarations of the de ceased after the mortal wound is given, may be received in evidence, though the party did not express any apprehension of approach ing dissolu ceived. S. C. 1 East, 354, 356. cock was tried before LORD CHIEF BARON EYRE, present MR. JUSTICE ASHHURST, and MR. SERJEANT ADAIR, Recorder, for the wilful murder of Silvia Woodcock, his wife. Ir appeared in evidence, that she was found lying in a ditch, in a narrow lane, called Robinson's Lane, in the vicinity of Chelsea, in the county of Middlesex. She had received eight wounds about the head, face, and neck, which seemed to have been inflicted with the end of a blunt instrution: but the ment; and was so exhausted by the loss of blood as to be examination apparently dead. The body was taken to Chelsea Poorof such a person taken by a house, put into a warm bed, and by medical assistance remagistrate ex- stored to life. In the course of eight hours, she recovered cannot be re- her senses to such a degree, as to be enabled to give a rational account of the circumstances by which this catastrophe was accompanied. The overseers of the parish, therefore, thought it expedient to desire the attendance of a magistrate, for the purpose of taking her information in legal form. Mr. Read, a Justice of the Peace for the county, attended at the Poor-house accordingly. He found the informant, who was a baptized mulatto, and native of the East Indies, in a state of perfect recollection. He told her that he was a magistrate come to take her examination, and admonished her to speak the truth; and as she appeared sensible of the impiety and dangers of falsehood, he administered an oath to her, and received her information, which he reduced, in her own words, into writing. He afterwards read it over to her with great deliberation, and gave it to her to sign, and she made her mark on the paper in approbation of its contents. The magistrate then signed it himself; and being proved on the |