Page images
PDF
EPUB

In Michaelmas Term 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and held that though Balls had suffered the imprisonment, yet as it was not part of his sentence that he should be burnt in the hand, whipped or fined, he was not restored to his competency, and that the conviction was wrong. (a)

(a) Vide Rex v. Howell, Russell & Ryan's C. C. R. 253. Rex v. Badcock ibid. 248.

REX v. MORRIS CAMFIELD and MICHAEL WHITE.

Though a servant live rent free for the purpose of his service in a house provided for that purpose, yet if he has the exclusive possession and it is not parcel of any premises which his master occupies, it may be described as the house of the servant; especially if the house belongs not to his master, but to some person paramount his master, as in the case of the toll collector's house occupied by the servant of the lessee of the tolls, for the purpose of collecting the tolls.

THE prisoners were tried before Mr. BARON HULLOCK, at the Yorkshire Summer Assizes in the year 1824, on an indictment for a burglary "in the dwelling-house of Edward Ellis," and stealing therein money and provincial promissory notes to the amount together of upwards of 80%., the property of the said Edward Ellis.

The offence was clearly established in point of fact against both the prisoners, and they were convicted of

burglary, and the learned Judge passed sentence of death upon them.

Edward Ellis, the prosecutor, kept the toll-bar at Newton, and lived with his wife in a house which is situated immediately contiguous to the gate. This house was erected by the trustees or the commissioners of this turnpike road, as and for the dwelling-house of the person who might be employed to collect the tolls at that gate. They (the trustees) always provide a house for the residence of the toll collector. Ellis had been the collector of these tolls, and the actual occupier of this house for several years before the transaction in question. He was employed to collect these tolls by a Mr. Ward, who was the lessee under the trustees of this road, of the tolls to be taken at the gates. Ellis made his agreement with Ward alone; by that agreement he was to collect the tolls at this gate, and pay them over to Ward monthly, and he was to be paid for his labour by the week. Ellis besides had the privilege of living in the toll-house as collector. Nothing passed between Ward and Ellis, at the time of their agreement, relating to any notice to quit. This toll-house, in which the offence was committed, was accordingly inhabited at the time by Ellis (and his wife) only, as collector of these tolls.

On the trial, the prisoner's counsel objected, that the dwelling-house was not properly described in the indictment as the dwelling-house of Edward Ellis.

In support of the objection, reference was made to several of the earlier cases upon this subject, in Leach, Crown Cases, and East, Pleas of the Crown.

The learned Judge was inclined to think that the objection was ill founded, it appearing to him that whether Ellis derived his right to the possession of the toll-house immediately from the trustess of the road, or from Ward; that he was, in either case, tenant thereof

at will; and that, therefore, the dwelling-house was correctly described in the indictment.

But the learned Judge (after consulting with Mr. JUSTICE BAYLEY,) respited the execution, and submitted the above question to the consideration and opinion of the Judges.

In Michaelmas Term, 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and were unanimously of opinion that the house was rightly described; for Ellis had the exclusive possession, and it was unconnected with any premises of Ward's, and Ward did not appear to have any interest in it. (a)

(a) Vide Brown's case, 2 East, P. C. 501. S. C. 2 Leach, C. C. 1018, notis. 4th edit. Margett's case, 2 Leach, C. C. 930. Rex v. Stock, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 185. S. C. 2 Taunt. 339. 2 Leach, C. C. 1015. Rex v. Collett, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 498. Rex v. Jobling, ibid. 525. Rex v. Jarvis, ante, 7.

REX v. NAPPER.

Where time and place are material, the time and place stated shall be taken to be the true time and place; therefore in an indictment for stealing in a dwelling-house, if it is not expressly stated where the dwelling-house is situated, it shall be taken to be situated at the place named in the indictment by way of venue.

THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice BAYLEY, at the Summer Assizes for Lancaster in the year 1824, of stealing in a dwelling-house; but a doubt having occurred whether the situation of the house was sufficiently described in the indictment, the learned Judge submitted that point to the consideration of the Judges.

The indictment stated that the prisoner, on the 6th August, 5 Geo. 4, at Liverpool, in the county aforesaid

one coat, value forty shillings, &c. of the goods and chattels of Daniel Jackson, in the dwelling-house of William Thomas, then and there being, then and there did feloniously steal, &c.

99

The doubt was, whether it should not have been stated "in the dwelling-house of William Thomas, there situate." Indictments for burglary and arson generally contain such a statement, and so do indictments for breaking a house in the day time, or demolishing a house.

In Michaelmas Term, 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and held that the indictment showed sufficiently that the house was situate at Liverpool, and that the conviction was therefore proper.

REX v. JOHN PARKIN.

If a man steal in one county and carry into another, it will be larceny in the latter though the goods are not carried into the latter county until long after the original theft. Though a verdict is recorded, yet if it appear promptly that it is not according to the intention of the jury, it may be vacated and set right.

THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice BAYLEY, at the Summer Assizes for the county of Durham, in the year 1824, for stealing a bank note for

1007.

The prisoner stole the note in question at Huddersfield, in Yorkshire, on the 4th of November, 1823, and on the 17th March, 1824, brought it into the county of Durham, and there endeavoured to utter it.

The learned Judge doubted, whether, considering the long interval between the theft and the bringing it into Durham, this could properly be deemed a felony in the county of Durham, and therefore reserved the point for the opinion of the Judges.

The prisoner's defence was, that he found the note three weeks after the 4th of November, but there was no evidence to support that defence.

As the prosecutor and the prisoner were drinking together some hours, the learned Judge had no doubt but that the prisoner either picked the prosecutor's pocket of the book containing the note, or that the prosecutor dropped his pocket-book, and the prisoner picked it up.

The jury retired, and returned saying, they found the prisoner guilty of having the note in his possession, but how he got it they could not say. The learned Judge asked if they thought he might have found it three weeks after they were together in company on the 4th of November, and one of them said "yes." The learned Judge said that was an acquittal, and a verdict of not guilty was recorded.

The learned Judge immediately gave the prisoner an admonition, and ordered the note to be given to the prosecutor, when some of the jury said, that the juryman who had answered the learned Judge, had no authority from his companions to give him the answer he did, and that several of them differed from him upon that answer. The jury was therefore directed to retire again, and the learned Judge told them, that if they were satisfied the prisoner picked the prosecutor's pocket, or picked up the pocket-book animo furandi, after the prosecutor dropped it, they ought to convict, otherwise to acquit. They convicted the prisoner; but as there was an interval of three or four minutes after the verdict was recorded, before the jury expressed their dissent, the learned Judge reserved the point for the consideration of the Judges.

In Michaelmas Term, 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and were clearly of opinion that the interval between the first taking and the carrying this note into Durham, did not prevent the offence from being a larceny in Durham; that the mistake in the

« PreviousContinue »