amount far exceeding 15. It did not occur to the learned Judge at the time, that the offence was clergyable. The prisoners did not pray their clergy, and the learned Judge passed upon them sentence of death, and marked them for transportation for life.

After the learned Judge had reached Lancaster he was apprised of his mistake, and immediately wrote to the secretary of state that nothing might be done with the prisoners until the opinion of the Judges could be taken.

The questions reserved for the consideration of the Judges were,

First. Whether, as the prisoners did not pray their clergy, they could be properly transported under the present sentence? If not,

Secondly. Whether this sentence could be vacated, and they could be called up again at the next assizes to pray their clergy and have a proper sentence? If not,

Thirdly. Whether they could be tried de novo as if there had been no former trial? See 2 Hale 321, 378, 379, 381, 395, 401, 404. Dyer 205, a, 4 Bla. Com. 380.

In Easter term, 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and they were of opinion that the prisoners might be brought up at the next assizes, and asked why execution should not be awarded, and that they might then pray their clergy. (a)

(a) See 56 G. 3, c. 27, § 3, by which it is enacted, that when his Majesty shall be pleased to extend mercy to any offender who hath been convicted of any crime for which he is by law excluded from the benefit of clergy, upon condition of transportation to any place beyond the seas, either for life or for years, and such intention of mercy shall be signified by one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, it shall be lawful for any Court having proper authority, to allow such offender the benefit of a conditional pardon, and to order such offender to be transported for life or years, as shall be specified in such condition of transportation as aforesaid; and when any offender shall be convicted, of any crime for which he is by law excluded the benefit

REX v. JOHN BAILEY.

If two or more rent of the owner different parts of same house, so as to have amongst them the whole house, and the owner does not reserve or occupy any part, the sepa rate part of each may be described as the dwelling-house of each.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. Justice PARK, (Mr. Baron GARROW being present) at the Old Bailey sessions, April, 1824, on an indictment for burglary in the dwellinghouse of Richard Ryan, and stealing various articles of perfumery, &c.

There was no doubt of the burglary, or of the larceny, and the jury pronounced the prisoner guilty, upon the learned Judge informing them that he would reserve the question for the Judges, whether the dwelling-house, under the circumstances, was the sole dwelling-house of Richard Ryan or not?

The facts on which this question arose were as follows: The prosecutor, Richard Ryan, who was a perfumer and hair dresser, and one William Choice, a tobacconist, occupied one large shop, then divided into two by a partition, each side of the shop having a door opening into the street; and at the end of the counter of each shop

of clergy, the Judge before whom such offender shall be convicted, shall, on such intention of mercy as aforesaid being signified to him by one of the principal Secretaries of State, make an order for the immediate transportation of such offender, in the same manner as if such intention of mercy had been signified by one of the principal Secretaries of State during the continuance of the assizes, &c. at which such offender was condemned, and such order shall be considered as an order made at such assizes, &c., and shall be as effectual and have all the same consequences as any order for the transportation of any offender made by any justice of Oyer and Terminer, &c. during the continuance of the assizcs, &c.

there was a door opening into a common passage, which led to one common stair-case, and these doors were locked by each at night. In the rest of the house there was no further separation, than what exists in all dwellinghouses, namely, of one room from another. Each had his own separate family, separate kitchen, &c.

It was one tenement before the occupation of Ryan and Choice, and they held under one common landlord, to whom they respectively paid rent, Choice 100%. per annum, and Ryan 80l. per annum. But Choice paid all the taxes for both, and their holdings commenced at different periods. The prisoner entered at the window of the common stair-case, and then unlocked the door of Ryan's shop, and so entered it.

The question reserved for the consideration of the Judges was, whether this was to be considered the house of Ryan alone, or the house of Ryan and Choice.

In Easter Term, 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and held that the house was rightly described as Ryan's house, and that the conviction was right, the breaking and entering being into Ryan's shop. (a)

(a) See Rex v. Jarvis, supra p. 7. Rex v. Camfield, infra, and the cases there referred to.

REX v. WILLIAM NIBBS and HENRY YEAMS.

A set of new handkerchiefs in a piece may be described as so many handkerchiefs, though they are not separated one from another, if the pattern designates each, and they are described in the trade as so many handkerchiefs.

THE prisoners were tried and convicted of larceny before Mr. Baron HULLOCK, at the Old Bailey Sessions, June, 1824, upon an indictment charging them with breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Joseph Christian and Henry Curwen Christian, about, &c., and stealing therein "six handkerchiefs," of the value of fifty shillings, of the said Joseph Christian and Henry Curwen Christian.

The larceny was clearly proved, but a question arose whether the property stolen was rightly described in the indictment.

The only evidence applicable to this point was given by one of the prosecutors, Henry Curwen Christian, and was as follows:

"I caught hold of both the prisoners within a yard of "the shop window; a piece of silk handkerchiefs drop"ped from the person of one of them. It contained six "handkerchiefs: it cost us fifty shillings. There is a "mark between each handkerchief; the mark consists "of a white or light coloured line, whereby the handker"chiefs are divided, or separated with the scissors from "each other: this line is of cotton, and not of silk. "When purchasing these pieces we are charged not by "the piece, but according to the number of handkerchiefs ; "the price is always charged according to the number of "handkerchiefs: the name by which it goes in our shop " is a piece of silk handkerchiefs; the piece is just as I "bought it."

The property produced was a piece of silk, containing six handkerchiefs in number; not, however, severed or cut from each other, but in one piece, just as it came from the loom.

It was objected that this evidence did not sustain the charge in the indictment of stealing "six handkerchiefs."

The learned Judge was inclined to allow the objection, but it being stated that indictments at the Old Bailey had been usually framed in a similar manner in similar cases, he respited the judgment until the opinion of the Judges could be obtained upon the question, whether the indictment was in this case supported by the evidence.

In Trinity term, 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and were of opinion that the property was rightly described, and that the conviction was right.

REX v. GEORGE BRUNSWICK.

In larceny the goods of a ready furnished lodging must be described as the lodger's goods, not as the goods of the original owner.

THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice BAYLEY, (HULLOCK, B. being present,) at the Old Bailey Sessions, June, 1824, of stealing two counterpanes, two sheets, and one blanket, of Daniel Davis.

It appeared in evidence that the goods belonged to Daniel Davis, but that the use of them was let with a ready furnished room to Catharine Bath.

The learned Judge saved the point whether these goods were properly described as the goods of Daniel Davis, or whether they should have been described as the goods of Catharine Bath, as she alone, if she had