verdict might be corrected, and that the conviction was therefore proper. (a)

(a) If one steal goods in one county and carry them into another, he may be indicted in either. But if one steal goods at sea, and bring them to land, he cannot be indicted in the county into which they are brought. Butler and other pirates robbed divers persons upon the high sea on the coast of Norfolk, and brought the goods into the county of Norfolk, and whether they might be indicted there of the larceny was moved before WRAY, C. J., and PERIAM, J., and resolved that they could not, because the original taking was no felony, whereof the common-law took cognizance. 3 Inst. 113.

If A. steal goods in the county of B., and carry them into the county of C., he may be indicted in the county of C., for the continuance of the asportation is a new caption. 1 Hale, 507, 508. 4 Bla. Com. 305.

If A. robs B. in the county of C., and carries the goods into the county of D., A. cannot be indicted of robbery in the county of D., because the robbery was in another county; but he may be indicted of larceny or theft in the county of D., because it is a theft wherever he carries the goods. 2 Hale, 163. 4 H. 7. 5 b. Bulmer's case, 7 Co. 2, a.

If A. steal goods of B. in the county of C., and carry them into the county of D., he may be indicted in the county of D., as well as that of C., because the possession still continuing in B., every moment's continuance of the trespass, is as much a wrong, and may come under the word cepit as much as the first taking. 1 Hawk. c. 19, s. 52.

If A. steals B.'s goods, and C. steals them from A., C. may be indicted for stealing the goods of B., because, in judgment of law the possession and property still continue in B. 1 Hale, 507. 1 Hawk. c. 19, s. 13.

If A. steals goods in the county of B., and carry them into several counties, it is felony in all the counties into which they are carried, for felony doth not divest the property. Bulmer's case, 7 Co. 2, a.

REX v. ANN TURNER.

An indictment on 15 G. 2, c. 28, s. 2, for feloniously uttering counterfeit coin after two convictions and judgments for misdemeanors on the same statute, must set out the former convictions and judgments with prout patet per recordam. Judg.

ment for misdemeanor cannot be given on an indictment for felony, bad for want of such averment.

THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice HOBHOYD, at the Summer Assizes for Warwickshire in the year 1824, of feloniously uttering a false and counterfeit shilling, well knowing the same to be false and counterfeit, contrary to the statute 15 Geo. 2, c. 28, sec. 2, (a) having been twice before convicted of similar utterings as misdemeanors contrary to the same statute.

The indictment stated in due form, that at a prior general gaol delivery, in and for the same county, she was tried and convicted by a jury upon an indictment which stated, that at a prior general quarter sessions for the same county, she was tried and convicted upon an indictment against her for the first offence, and which stated in due form the judgment of six months' imprisonment thereon, and for finding sureties for good behaviour for six months more, "as by the record thereof did more fully appear," it then stated, in due form, that she having been so convicted as aforesaid, committed the second offence in the late

(a) By which it is enacted, that if any person whatsoever shall utter or tender in payment any false or counterfeit money, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, to any person, and shall be thereof convicted, such person so offending shall suffer six months' imprisonment, and find sureties for his good behaviour for six months more, to be computed from the end of the said first six months; and if the same person shall afterwards be convicted a second time of the like offence of uttering or tendering in payment any false or counterfeit money, knowing the same to be so, such person shall for such second offence, suffer two years' imprisonment, and find sureties for his good behaviour for two years more, to be computed from the end of the said first two years; and if the same person shall afterwards offend a third time in uttering or tendering in payment any false or counterfeit money, knowing the same to be so, and shall be convicted of such third offence, he shall be adjudged to be guilty of felony without benefit of clergy.

king's time against the form of the statute, &c. "and that thereupon, it was considered and adjudged by the said court first mentioned, that the said Ann Turner should be imprisoned in the common gaol of our said late lord the king, of the said county, for the term of two years, and until she should find sureties for her good behaviour for the term of two years more, to be computed from the expiration of the said first two years; herself in the penal sum of twenty pounds, and two sureties in the penal sum of ten pounds each;" and then, without any statement of prout patet per recordam, as to these proceedings for the second offence, the indictment tried before the learned Judge went on to state, in due form, that the said Ann Turner, having been so convicted as last aforesaid, feloniously committed the third offence against the form of the statute in such case made and provided.

It was objected after the trial, in arrest of judgment, that the present indictment in setting forth the trial, conviction, and judgment upon the second indictment for the second offence, and which were essential to constitute the crime a felony as charged in the third indictment, was defective in not stating or alleging a prout patet per recordam as to those proceedings, as appears to have been done in the second indictment, in stating the proceedings had under the first indictment. Vide 15 Geo. 2, c. 28, s. 2 & 9. 2 Stark. Cr. Law, 535. Com. Dig. Plead. (C. 82.) (E. 18. 22.) Wiles, 126.

It was also objected, that there ought to have been an allegation that the former convictions and judgments remained in force unreversed, &c.

And it was further objected, that it did not allege as facts the actual committing of the two former offences; or even the trials, convictions, and judgments upon both

of them, but only the trial, conviction, and judgment, upon the second indictment, though the second indictment appeared to have alleged a trial, conviction, and judgment upon the first. See Michael's case, 2 Leach,

C. C. 938, 4th ed. S. C. 1 East, P. C. Add. xix. Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 29. 1 Russ. 116. Stark. Cr. Law, 535. The learned Judge respited the judgment, and the question reserved for the opinion of the Judges was, whether the judgment could be arrested.

Or, if the indictment be defective as for a felony, could it be deemed sufficient to warrant a judgment for the offence as for a misdemeanor?

In Michaelmas Term, 1824, the Judges met and considered this case, and held that the indictment was bad for want of a prout patet per recordam in the statement of the conviction and judgment for the second offence; and that no judgment could be given for the misdemeanor upon this record; and that the judgment was therefore arrested. (a)

(a) Vide Rex v. Smith, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 5. S. C. 1 East, P. C. 183. 2 Leach, C. C. 858. Rex v. Booth, Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 7.

REX v. THOMAS SAVAGE.

Upon a challenge for cause, the person making the challenge must be prepared to prove the cause. On an indictment on 9 G. 1, c. 22, (a) for setting fire to a barn; in support of a challenge to the panel, because the sheriff is an inhabitant of the hundred, it is necessary to prove, that the notice has been given within two days of the injury, and that the examination has been delivered, which the statute requires.

THE prisoner was tried before ALEXANDER, L. C. B. at the Summer Assizes for Huntingdon, in the year 1824, on an indictment for setting fire to a house of Thomas Mast, and another house in the occupation of Matthew Wasdale.

The counsel for the prisoner objected to the panel, because the sheriff was an inhabitant of the hundred in which the houses set fire to were situated and the offence committed. Before proceeding further, the learned Chief Baron pointed out to the counsel for the prisoner the 8th section of the 9 G. 1, c. 22, which disables any one from recovering damages unless he shall, two days after the injury, give notice to some of the inhabitants of the town, village, or hamlet, near to the place where the fact was committed, and within four days deliver in an examination upon oath before a justice of the peace of the county, liberty, or division where the fact was committed; and asked him whether he was ready to prove these previous requisites. (b)

(a) The 9 G. 1, c. 22, s. 1, enacts, that if any person shall set fire to any house, barn or out-house, or to any hovel, cock, mow, or stack of corn, straw, hay or wood, &c. and being thereof convicted, he shall be adjudged guilty of felony without benefit of clergy, &c.

64.

(b) Vide Fowler v. Inhabitants of the Hundred of Loningborough,a 1 Bro. &. Bing.

Eng. Com. Law Reps. v. 18.