See DWELLING-HOUSE. BREAKING, 1, 2, 3.
1. If a servant lives in a house of his master's, at a yearly rent, the house cannot be described as the master's house, though it is on the premises where the master's business is carried on, and although the servant has it because of his service. Rex v. Jarvis and another. Page 7 2. An outhouse in the yard of a dwelling-house, will be parcel of the dwelling-house, if the yard is inclosed, though the occupier has another dwelling-house, opening in the yard, and he lets such dwelling-house, with certain easements in the yard. Rex v. Walters and others.
3. 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. Rex v. Camfield and another.
4. Throwing up a window, and introducing an instrument between such window and an inside shutter to force open the shutter, if the hand, or some part of it, is not within the window, is not a sufficient entry to constitute burglary. Rex v. Rust and another.
Asses are cattle within the meaning of 9 G. 1, c. 22. See
4 G. 4, c. 54, s. 2. Rex v. Whitney.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
See JURISDICTION, 2.
ALTERATION.
See FORGERY.
ALTERNATIVE.
See INDICTMENT, 9, 17.
See LARCENY, 12. SHEEP STEALING.
See CUTTING, 2, 4, 5, 6. GAMEKEEPER, 1, 2, 3. MAN-
SLAUGHTER, 1. WARRANT.
1. If a man be found attempting to commit a felony in
the night, any one may apprehend and detain him,
until he can be carried before a magistrate. Rex v.
Hunt.
If a constable take a man without a warrant, upon a
charge which gives him no authority to do so, and
the prisoner runs away and is pursued by J. S., who
was with the constable all the time, and charged by
him to assist, and the man kill J. S. to prevent his
retaking him, it will not be murder, but manslaughter
only, because the arrest was illegal, and J. S. ought to
have known it was, and then his attempt to retake
was illegal also; and that, though the prisoner, whilst
in custody of the constable, struck the man by whom
charge was given, because a blow, whilst he was under
the influence of the provocation from the illegal arrest
caused by such man, would not justify the constable
in detaining him; at least it will make no difference if
the blow was not likely to be followed with dangerous
consequences nor made a new and distinct ground of
detainer. Rex v. Curvan.
3. A man may be arrested without warrant under
3 G. 4, c. 40, s. 5, as a person found in a dwelling-house,
and with intent to commit a felony, if he is seen in the
dwelling-house, but gets out of it, and is taken on fresh
pursuit. And it makes no difference that he was not
seen getting out of the house, and was found concealing
himself to avoid being apprehended upon other premises
To make such an arrest legal, it is not necessary that the
person should have at the time he is arrested a con-
tinuing purpose to commit the felony; he may be
arrested though that purpose is wholly ended.
Where the circumstances are such, that a man must know
why a person is about to apprehend him, he need not
be told, and the arrest will be legal, and the resistance
illegal, as much as if he had been told. Rex v. Howarth.
Page 207
4. Attempting illegally to arrest a man is sufficient to
reduce killing the person making the attempt to man-
slaughter, though the arrest was not actually made,
and though the prisoner had armed himself with a
deadly weapon to resist such attempt; if the prisoner
was in such a situation that he could not have escaped
from the arrest; and it is not necessary that he should
have given warning to the person attempting to arrest
him before he struck the blow. Rex v. Thompson. 80
See CHALLENGE TO THE PANEL. INDICTMENT, 23. SHIP.
THREATENING LETTERS, 3. MALICE.
1. 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 Insol-
vent 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. Rex v. Ball. 30
2. It is not within 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 30, s. 2, for a wife to set
fire to her husband's house. Rex v. March.
3. An open building in a field, at a distance from, and out
of the sight of the owner's house, though boarded round
and covered in, is not an out-house within 7 & 8 G. 4,
c. 30, s. 2. Rex v. Ellison and another.
4. It is no objection on not guilty, that there is no such
place in the county as that in which the offence is stated
to have been committed.
On an indictment for setting fire to a stack of pulse, a
mistake as to the name of the place where the offence
was committed is immaterial: the charge is transitory,
not local.
Upon a statute which makes it capital to set fire to a
stack of pulse, it is sufficient to state that the prisoner
set fire to a stack of beans. The judges will take notice
that beans are pulse. Rex v. Woodward.
Page 323
5. An open shed in a farm-yard, composed of upright
posts supporting pieces of wood laid across them, and
covered with straw as a roof, is an outhouse within
the meaning of 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 30, s. 2. To constitute
a setting on fire, it is not necessary that any flame
should be visible. Rex v. Stallion.
6. An indictment for firing a stack of straw is not sup-
ported by proof of firing a stack of haulm. Rex v.
Tottenham.
ASPORTATION.
See COUNTY, 1. 3. LARCENY, 1.
PERSON. SHEEPSTEALING, 1.
If a larceny be committed out of the kingdom, though
within the King's dominions, bringing the things
stolen into this kingdom, will not make it larceny
here. Rex v. Prowes.
Making a female patient strip naked under the pretence
that the defendant, a medical man, cannot otherwise
judge of her illness is, if he himself takes off her clothes,
an assault. Rex v. Rosinski.
See CATTLE, 1.
AUTRE FOIS ACQUIT.
1. Plea by one prisoner, indicted singly for receiving stolen
goods, of autre fois acquit, under an indictment
against him and four others, on which one was con-
victed, and the prisoner and the three others were
acquitted, held good. Rex v. Dann.
2. An acquittal of an indictment for having been pre-
AUTRE FOIS ACQUIT-continued.
sent aiding and abetting in a felony, is no bar to indict-
ment charging the party as accessary before the fact.
Rex v. Burchenough.
Obtaining credit in account from the party's own banker,
by drawing a bill on a person on whom the party has
no right to draw,. and which has no chance of being
paid, is not within 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 53, though the
banker pays money for him in consequence thereof, to
an extent he would not otherwise have done. Rex v.
Wavell.
224
On an indictment against a bankrupt for concealing his
effects; if the evidence is that the bankrupt on his last
examination stated that a book given in by him contained
an account of all his effects, it is incumbent on the pro-
secutor to produce the book, or account for it, that it
may be seen whether that book mentions the property
or not. Rex v. Evani.
BASTARD.
See MURDER, 6. 7.
1. Indictment for murder of a female bastard child, whose
name to the jurors was unknown. The child had not
been baptized, but the prisoner had said she should like
it to be called Mary Ann, had called it Mary Ann, at
another time little Mary. The father was a baptist, the
child illegitimate:
Held, that the child had not acquired a name by reputation,
and the indictment good. Rex v. Smith.
2. An illegitimate child had been baptized by the name of
Eliza, without any surname, was described in an indict-
ment as Eliza Waters, Waters being the name of her
mother: Held a misdescription, the child not having
acquired such name by reputation. Rex v. Waters. 457
|