mitted an act of bankruptcy by departing from his dwelling-house on the 23d of February 1824.

All the requisites to support the commission, the commission itself, which issued on the 15th March, 1824, and the proceedings under it, were proved.

The bankrupt surrendered to the commissioners at Guildhall, and passed his last examination there on the 15th of June 1824, and upon that occasion, he signed a memorandum in writing, in which he stated that a book marked with the letter A., produced and delivered up by the prisoner, together with other things mentioned in the memorandum, contained and were a full and true disclosure and discovery of all his estate and effects.

This book marked A. was not produced in evidence on the part of the prosecution. It appeared by other evidence, that this book marked A. was in fact delivered up by the bankrupt, and was at one time in the possession of one of the assignees, but it did not appear what had become of the book, nor could any account be given of it, except that it had passed from one person to another; no search had been made for it by any body, nor was it proved to have been lost.

The counsel for the prisoner then objected that the indictment ought to have been preferred in London, where the last examination took place, and also that the book A. not being produced, the prosecutor could not go into any other evidence, as the book A., if produced, might contain an account of the things which were the subject of inquiry, and of the circumstances relating to them.

As to the venue in the indictment, the learned Judge thought it might be laid in Middlesex, if the prosecutor could prove an actual concealment there; and as to the non-production of the book A., the learned Judge reserved that point for the opinion of the Judges.

The evidence as to the concealment of the property, was as follows. That the prisoner was seen at the house of Mrs. Glaspool in the borough with whom he had some acquaintance on the 25th of February 1824, which was the day but one after he left Hastings; that on that day the witness who proved this stumbled over some boxes in the room where the prisoner was, but did not take any notice of the boxes. On the 4th of April following, about ten o'clock at night, Miss Glaspool, the daughter of Mrs. Glaspool, brought two boxes in a coach to a Mr. Hutchinson, at Pimlico, who was a relation of her's; the boxes remained there till the 10th of August following, when they were seized by the messenger under the commission, and carried away. One of the boxes, and a box which contained the contents of the others, were produced at the trial, and contained watches and jewellery of the value of nearly 1000l.; and part of these, to the value of 100%. and upwards, were proved and identified as having been sold by different tradesmen to the prisoner in January preceding.

It appeared that the prisoner was in the road, near the house of Mr. Hutchinson, on the night of the 11th of August, and inquired of one of the Miss Hutchinson's for Miss Glaspool; that she was then in the house of Mr. Hutchinson, and went out to speak to him. Miss Glaspool went home that night, and came to Mr. Hutchinson's the next morning, the 12th of August, at 7 o'clock. Sometime after she came, the prisoner knocked at Mr. Hutchinson's door, and asked for Miss Glaspool. She went out to speak to him, and remained out half an hour.

The prisoner was apprehended that morning, at a public house in Dover-street, Piccadilly; and before he was apprehended, he said to the son of Mr. Hutchin

son, at whose house the boxes were left, and who had laid a plan for his apprehension, "The boxes and property belonged to me, and if you will give them up to me, I will give you every proof and satisfaction that they belong to me." But the witness had never seen the boxes, and he could not say that the prisoner meant the boxes which were seized; that the prisoner afterwards reclined his head on the table, and said to the witness, "my head is under your arm."

The prisoner's counsel objected that there was no evidence that the effects had ever been in the possession of the prisoner after the bankruptcy, and also that there was no evidence of any concealment in Middlesex, as it was not proved that he ever was in Middlesex till after the boxes were taken away. But as to that, the learned Judge thought it was for the jury to say, whether Miss Glaspool, on the 4th August, had these goods as the agent of and subject to the control of the prisoner, and whether she had taken them to Mr. Hutchinson's, by the direction and with the privity and knowledge of the prisoner, and if they so thought, they should find him guilty.

The jury found the prisoner guilty on the second and third counts. The learned Judge directed an acquittal on the first count, as there was a variance between the statement as to who was the petitioning creditor in the indictment, and the petition itself on which the commission issued.

The prisoner's counsel also objected, that though the second count stated the intent to be to defraud between twenty and thirty creditors by name, it was not proved that more than five or six of them were creditors; the learned Judge thought the objection not well founded, and that it differed from the case of forgery or uttering

base coin with intent to defraud particular persons, where the persons must be proved as laid, for here the concealment being with intent to defraud the creditors generally, it was sufficient to prove any of the persons to be creditors.

In order to prove the other twenty to be creditors, the counsel for the prosecution offered in evidence the proceedings under the commission, but the learned Judge thought them not admissible.

The counsel for the prisoner contended, that the second and third counts were defective in not stating that the commissioners took the oaths before they acted, and the different adjournments which took place, and that these counts were otherwise too general.

The learned Judge reserved all these points for the consideration of the Judges, and respited the judg

ment.

The second count of the indictment did not state what the objects of the commission were, nor what authority the commissioners had; it only stated, that a commission issued, founded on the several statutes concerning bankrupts, directed to certain persons by name.

It was not stated that he was found and declared a bankrupt by the commissioners, but only that he was duly found and declared a bankrupt.

It stated, that he surrendered himself to and was examined before three persons by name, being the major part of the commissioners; but it did not appear by the indictment that the major part of the commissioners had any power to take his surrender and examination.

The third count did not state that the prisoner was a person subject to the bankrupt laws, or that he became indebted to any creditors, or that he became bankrupt, and was otherwise very general.

In Hilary Term, 1825, the Judges met and considered this case, and held that the conviction was wrong, and that the production of the book was a necessary part of the prosecutor's case, for otherwise it could not be known whether the effects had been concealed or not.

REX v. BRIDGER LEDBITTER.

It is an offence within 4 G. 1, c. 11, s. 4, to take money under pretence of helping a man to goods stolen from him, though the prisoner had no acquaintance with the felon, and did not pretend that he had, and though he had no power to apprehend the felon, and though the goods were never restored, and the prisoner had no power to restore them.

THE prisoner was tried before THOMAS DENMAN, Esq. Common Serjeant, at the Old Bailey sessions, December, 1824, upon an indictment framed upon the 4 G. 1, c. 11, s. 4, (a) for that whereas certain goods, to wit

(a) By 4 G. 1, c. 11, s. 4, it is enacted, that wherever any person taketh money or reward, directly or indirectly, under pretence or upon account of helping any person to any stolen goods or chattels, every such person so taking money or reward as aforesaid, (unless such person doth apprehend, or cause to be apprehended, such felon who stole the same, and cause such felon to be brought to his trial for the same, and give evidence against him) shall be guilty of felony, and suffer the pains and penalties of felony, according to the nature of the felony committed in stealing such goods, and in such and the same manner as if such offender had himself stolen such goods and chattels, in the manner and with such circumstances as the same were stolen.