arsenic, and sulphate of copper, the first of which was proved to be a deadly poison, and the other to be a poison in certain circumstances, and at all events to be a noxious and destructive substance.

The testimony of the prosecutrix was fully confirmed in a great variety of circumstances; and the jury, to the perfect satisfaction of the Court, found the prisoner guilty. But the counsel for the prisoner, having urged an objection which had previously occurred to the Court, and was noticed in the charge to the grand jury as matter of doubt; namely, that in order to bring the case within the meaning of the statute of the 43 G. 3, c. 58, it was not enough that the poison should be delivered to the person intended to be poisoned, for the purpose of being taken by such person, but that it ought to be proved to have been swallowed by, or taken into, the stomach of the person intended to be poisoned; the Court did not pass sentence upon the prisoner, but deferred doing so until the ensuing Great Sessions, in order that the opinion of the twelve learned Judges might be taken upon the question, whether, under the circumstances of this case, the offence of which the prisoner was convicted was complete within the words of the statute of the 43 G. 3, c. 58.

In Michaelmas Term, 1825, the Judges met and considered this case; and they seemed to think swallowing not essential; but they were of opinion, that a mere delivery to the woman did not constitute an administering, and that upon a statute so highly penal they ought not to go beyond what was meant by the word administering; and a pardon was therefore recommended.

REX v. WILLIAM OWEN and WILLIAM PRICKETT.

If an indictment, under 57 G. 3, c. 90, describe the place in which the defendant was found armed, by giving it a name, and also stating who the owner or occupier is, a mistake in the name will be fatal; though it is not necessary, where the name of the owner or occupier of the close is stated, to state the name of the close also.

THE defendants were tried and convicted before Mr. Baron HULLOCK, at the Winter gaol delivery for the county of Essex, in the year 1825, on an indictment, the first count of which charged them with unlawfully entering, on the 28th of November, 6 G. 4, at the parish of Navestock, a certain wood there situate," called the Old Walk, of, and belonging to, and then in the occupation of, John James, Earl of Waldegrave," with intent illegally to destroy, take, and kill game; and being found therein at night armed with guns and bludgeons.

The indictment contained five other counts: the second, third, and fourth were substantially the same as the first; the two last were for entering, &c., an enclosed ground (without giving it a name) of, and belonging to, and then in the occupation of, John Fothergill, Esq. with the like intent. Upon these two counts no evidence was offered. The offence was clearly established by evidence.

It was proved that the wood in question was the property, and, at the time of the transaction, in the actual occupation of the Earl Waldegrave; but it was also proved that the wood had always been called the Long Walk, and had never been called or known by the name of the Old Walk.

Upon this evidence it was objected, on the behalf of the defendants, that there was a fatal variance between the proof, and the allegation, in the first count of the indictment.

The learned Judge refused to stop the case, thinking, at the time, that as the words "called the Old Walk," might have been entirely omitted, without prejudice to the indictment, they might be rejected as surplusage, inasmuch as there was an ample description of the wood in the subsequent part of the allegation. The learned Judge, however, told the prisoner's counsel, that if, upon consideration, he should entertain any doubt upon the point, he would submit it to the consideration of the learned Judges.

The jury convicted the defendants, and the learned Judge passed sentence upon them; but submitted the case to the consideration of the Judges.

At a meeting of the Judges in Hilary Term, 1826, the variance was held fatal, and the conviction wrong. (a)

(a) Ridley's case, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 515. Pye's case, 2 Minton's case, ibid. 1021. Healey's case, 1 Ry. & M. C. C. R. 1. 2 B. & A. 363. Nowell v. Sands, 2 Roll. Abr. 677.

East. P. C. 785, 6.
Ricketts v. Salway,

REX v. JACKSON.

If a pawnbroker's servant, who has a general authority from his master to act in his business, delivers up a pledge to the pawner, on receiving a parcel from the pawner, which he supposes containing valuables he has just seen in the pawner's possession in a similar parcel, the receipt of the pledges by the pawner is not larceny. (b)

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. Serjeant ARABIN, at the Old Bailey December sessions, in the year 1825, for

(b) In doubtful cases of this description, it is now safer to indict for the misdemeanor, in obtaining goods under false pretences, under 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 53, which, after subjecting such offenders to seven years' transportation, or such other punishment by fine or imprisonment, or both, as the Court shall direct, provides, "that if upon the trial of any person indicted for such misdemeanor, it shall be proved that he obtained the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to larceny, he shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted of such misdemeanor."

stealing, in the dwelling-house of Philip Lawton, a diamond broach, a diamond locket, a pair of gold watchcases, a watch-movement, a watch-chain, and two seals, his property, amounting in value to 341.

The prosecutor proved that he was a pawnbroker and silversmith; and that the prisoner had often pawned goods at his shop, in his dwelling house in Green street, Leicester square.

A person in the prosecutor's employ, named Burgess, and who was proved to have general authority from the prosecutor to manage his business, stated, that the prisoner came to the prosecutor's shop on the 7th of March, and produced duplicates of property previously pledged to the amount of 347. (viz. the property laid in the indictment), and desired it to be brought up, and a light, as he had some diamonds to seal; he then produced a small packet of diamonds, which he desired Burgess to look at, and to advance the most he could upon them. Burgess looked at them, and agreed to advance 1607. on them; and having agreed to advance that sum, at the request of the prisoner, handed them over to him to seal up, which the prisoner did in his presence, and then returned a packet, which Burgess believed to be the one containing the diamonds, it resembling it in every respect. Burgess put it into his pocket, and then opened the parcels, which were found to contain the property laid in the indictment, and pledged on the 3d or 4th of March. Burgess then cast up the whole amount, which, with the interest, was 351. 2s., and deducted it from the 1607.; he then left the parlour, and fetched the prisoner the balance of 1247. in gold, bank notes, and silver, which, together with the goods pledged on the 3d or 4th of March, he handed over to the prisoner for the diamonds which he supposed he had got. The packet so deposited with Burgess he afterwards, in June, opened, when it was found to con

tain coloured stones of the value of 41. He stated, also, that he had no authority from his master to lend money, except upon pledges of an equivalent value; and that when he delivered the money, and also the property stated in the indictment, he supposed he had an equivalent for them in the diamonds in his pocket. He further stated, that when he delivered the goods in the indictment, he parted with them entirely, thinking the diamonds left with him were of sufficient value to cover the value of them, and the cash advanced; and that before he parted with them he had received the parcel, containing, as he supposed, the diamonds; that he had before examined the genuine diamonds, and might then have detained them; but as the prisoner said they might go through the hands of a second person, and be changed, he handed the genuine diamonds back to the prisoner, for the special purpose only of being sealed. Upon these facts being proved,

The learned Serjeant was inclined to think, that inasmuch as the property laid in the indictment was parted with by Burgess, absolutely under the impression that the prisoner had returned him the parcel containing the diamonds, that the prisoner's offence did not amount to felony; but he felt it his duty, previous to the verdict, to submit the substance of the facts proved to the learned Judges then present, who thought, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be more prudent to leave the facts to the jury; and if they convicted, afterwards to submit the case to the consideration of the twelve Judges.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the learned Serjeant reserved the case for the opinion of the Judges. In Hilary term, 1826, the Judges met, and considered this case; and were unanimous that the case was not larceny, because the servant, who had a general autho