kept them in her room, had the sole right to have possession of them.

In Trinity term, 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and were of opinion that the conviction was wrong. (a)

(a) See Rex v. Belstead, Russ. & Ry, C. C. R. 411.

REX v. SYLVESTER THORNTON.

A confession obtained without threat or promise from a boy fourteen years old, by questions put by a police officer, in whose custody the boy was on a charge of felony, and when he had no food for nearly a whole day, held rightly reccived.

THE prisoner, a lad of fourteen years of age, was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice BAYLEY at the Lent Assizes for the county of Lancaster, in the year 1824, but as the foundation of his conviction was his own confession, the learned Judge postponed passing sentence until he could take the opinion of the Judges, whether that confession was properly receivable in evidence.

A person of the name of Miller, the chief officer of the police at Liverpool, stated, that on the 18th of November the prisoner was apprehended, by his directions, without any warrant, between twelve and one o'clock, and that he was carried to the police office about one o'clock. The magistrates were then sitting at a very short distance, and continued sitting till between two and three, and till the business presented to them was finished; but the prisoner was not carried before them because the police officer was engaged elsewhere. The officer ordered the prisoner to Bridewell of his own authority, between four and five o'clock; and between five and six o'clock he told the prisoner, that in conse

quence of the falsehoods the prisoner had told, and the prevarications he had made, there was no doubt but he had set the premises on fire; and he therefore asked him if any person had been concerned with him, or induced him to do it? The prisoner said he had not done it. The police officer replied, that he would not have told so many falsehoods as he had, if he had not been concerned in it; and he again asked him if any body had induced him to do it? The prisoner then began to cry, and made a full confession.

In speaking of the falsehoods, the police officer referred to an examination of the prisoner he had himself made.

The prisoner was taken before he had dined, and had no food from the time he was apprehended till after his confession.

The learned Judge thought it deserved consideration, whether confession so obtained, when the detention of the prisoner was perhaps illegal, and when the conduct of the officer was calculated to intimidate, was admissible in evidence, and reserved the point for the opinion of the Judges.

In Trinity Term 1824 the Judges met, and considered this case, and the majority of the judges present, viz. ABBOTT, Ld. C. J., ALEXANDER, C. B., GRAHAM, B., Park, J., BURROUGH, J., GARROW, B., HULLOCK, B., held the confession rightly received, on the ground that no threat or promise had been used., BEST, C. J., BAYLEY J., HOLROYD J., were of the contrary opinion. (a)

(a) 1 Hale, 589. 2 Hale, 77; and see Rex v. Griffin, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 151. Rex v. Jones, ibid. 152; Rex v. Row, ibid. 153.

REX v. JAMES THOMAS BOYCE.

An indictment under 43 G. 3, c. 58, (a) for cutting and maiming with intent to murder and disable, is not supported by evidence of a cutting with intent to produce temporary disability in a person lawfully apprehending the prisoner.

THE prisoner was tried before THOMAS DENMAN, Esquire, Common Serjeant, at the Old Bailey Sessions, June 1824, upon an indictment for feloniously cutting and maiming John Fishburn, with intent to murder, maim and disable. There was no count which charged an intent to prevent his lawful apprehension.

The facts were these:

The prisoner had, in the night time, broken into a shop in Fleet Market, and was there discovered by the prosecutor, who was a watchman, at a quarter before five in the morning of the 11th of April, 1820. On the prosecutor entering the shop for the purpose of apprehending him, the prisoner struck him with his fist, which blow the prosecutor returned. The prisoner then said, "I will serve you out-I will do for you;" and, taking up a crow bar, struck the prosecutor with it two severe blows, one on the head, the other on the arm; he then ran away, ordering the prosecutor to sit on a block in the shop, and threatening that it would be worse for him if he moved.

The crow-bar was a sharp instrument, and the prose

(a) The 43 G. 3, c. 58, § 1, enacts, that if any person or persons, either in England or Ireland, shall wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully stab or cut any of his Majesty's subjects with intent in so doing, or by means thereof, to murder or rob, or to maim, disfigure or disable such his Majesty's subject or subjects, or with intent to do some other grievous bodily harm to such his Majesty's subject or subjects, or with intent to obstruct, resist, or prevent the lawful apprehension and detainer of the person so stabbing or cutting for any offences for which he, she, or they may be liable by law to be apprehended, imprisoned or detained, such person or persons are declared felons without clergy.

cutor was cut and maimed by the blows so given with it by the prisoner.

The prisoner was found guilty; and, on an answer to a question from the Common Serjeant, the jury said, “we find that he was there with intent to commit a robbery, and that he cut and maimed the watchman with intent to disable him, till he could effect his own escape."

The Common Serjeant reserved the above case for the consideration of the judges.

In Trinity Term 1824, all the Judges (except GRAHAM, B. and GARROW, B.) met, and considered this case, and held the conviction wrong, for, by the finding of the jury, the prisoner intended only to produce a temporary disability, till he could escape, not a permanent one. (a)

(a) See Rex v. Duffin, Russ. and Ry. C. C. R. 365. Rex v. Gillon, post, and Res v. Hunt, post.

REX v. ROBERT BALL.

A house in part of which a man lives and other parts of which he lets to lodgers, may be described as his house, though he has taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtor's Act, and executed an assignment including the house, if the assignee has not taken possession; at least no objection can be made if in other counts it is stated as the house of the assignee, and in others of the lodger whose room was set fire to.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. JUSTICE GASelee, (LITTLEDALE, J. being present), at the September Old Bailey Sessions, in the year 1824.

The indictment contained seventeen counts, some on the 9 Geo. 1, c. 22, and some on the 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, (b) of which the following is an abstract.

(b) The 43 G. 3, c. 58, § 1, enacts, that if any person shall, either in England or Ireland, wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully set fire to any house, barn, granary, hop

The first count charged, that the prisoner, on the 14th August, at St. Clement's Danes, feloniously, wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully did set fire to a certain house in the possession of John Fearn, with intent thereby to injure and defraud Charles Pole, a subject of the king, and the treasurer for the time being of a society or partnership formed and being under the name of the Sun Fire Office Company, against the statute, &c.

The second count was like the first, only charging the intent to be to injure James Preston.

The third count was like the first, charging the intent to be, to injure the said John Fearn.

The fourth count was like the first, laying the intent to be to injure the said John Fearn, and Michael Middleton. The fifth count was like the first, charging the intent to be to injure Henry Dance.

The sixth count was like the first, charging the intent to be to injure William Skeel.

The seventh count was same as the first, stating the house to be in the possession of Henry Dance.

The eighth count charged the prisoner with maliciously, &c. setting fire to a house in the possession of the said Henry Dance with intent to injure and defraud the said John Fearn.

The ninth count same as the eighth, with intent to injure and defraud Thomas Preston.

The tenth count same as the ninth, with intent to injure and defraud the said Henry Dance.

oast, malthouse, stable, coach house, out house, mill, warehouse or shop, whether such house, &c. shall then be in the possession of the person or persons, so setting fire to the same, or in the possession of any other person or persons, or of any body corporate, with intent thereby to injure or defraud his Majesty, or any of his Majesty's subjects, or any body corporate, that then in every such case the person so offending shall be deemed a felon without benefit of clergy.