&c. had been feloniously stolen from one John Charles Crampin and Bryan Charlesworth by a person unknown, the prisoner feloniously received and took from the said Crampin the sum of 301. of the moneys of the said Crampin and Charlesworth, under pretence of helping them to the said stolen goods feloniously, &c., not having apprehended, &c.

Crampin, the principal witness, stated that he was introduced by his partner Charlesworth to the prisoner, and had frequent interviews with him; that the prisoner at their first meeting received 307. of their joint moneys from Crampin, stating that there was no doubt, if the goods were in the hands of regular thieves he should be able to get them restored; the witness when he gave the prisoner the 30%. asked what it was for? the prisoner answered, it was for the purpose of recovering the goods, and that he was to see the thieves and one Iky Solomon, a notorious receiver, that day.

Similar representations were made at several meetings, but the prisoner had no acquaintance with the felon who stole the goods, nor did he represent that he had; he had no power to apprehend him or cause him to be apprehended or brought to trial, or any evidence to give against him. He did not help the owners to the recovery of the goods, nor were they recovered, nor had he any power to restore them.

The Common Serjeant left it to the jury to consider whether the 307. were received by the prisoner under pretence of helping Crampin and Charlesworth to the stolen goods, directing them to find the prisoner guilty if they found the affirmative of that proposition.

The jury found the prisoner guilty.

It was objected on behalf of the prisoner that the Common Serjeant ought to have directed an acquittal. First, because he had no acquaintance with the felon.

Secondly, because the goods never were recovered, and the prisoner had no power over them.

The learned Common Serjeant respited the judgment, in order that the opinion of the Judges might be taken on the case.

In Hilary Term, 1825, the Judges met and considered this case, and were of opinion that the case was within the statute and the conviction right.

REX v. WILLIAM THOMPSON.

To constitute a stealing from the person the thing must be completely removed from the person; removal from the place where it was, so as to constitute a simple larceny, if it remain throughout with the person, is not sufficient.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. Baron GARROW, at the Winter Assizes for the county of Sussex, in the year, 1825, on an indictment for stealing from the person of John Hillman a pocket-book and four promissory notes of 11. each.

The evidence of the prosecutor was this: "I was at a "fair at East Grinstead; I felt a pressure of two persons, "one on each side of me; I had secured my book in an "inside front pocket of my coat; I felt a hand between

66

66

my coat and waistcoat; I could feel the motion of the "knuckles; I was satisfied the prisoner was attempting "to get my book out. The other person had hold of my right arm, and I forced it from him, and thrust it down "to my book, in doing which I just brushed the prisoner's "hand and arm; the book was just lifted out of my "pocket; it returned into my pocket; it was out; how "far I cannot tell; I saw a slight glance of a man's hand "down from my breast. I secured the prisoner after a

"open,

"severe struggle, and a desperate attempt at escape, in "which he was assisted by twenty or thirty persons." Upon cross-examination the witness said, "my coat was the pocket not above a quarter of an inch deeper "than the book; I am satisfied the book was drawn from my pocket; it was an inch above the top of the pocket." Upon this evidence it was insisted for the prisoner that this did not amount to a taking from the person.

The learned Judge recommended it to the jury if they were satisfied that the prisoner removed the book with intent to steal it, to find him guilty. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but the learned Judge respited the execution of the sentence until the opinion of the Judges could be taken on the point.

In Hilary Term, 1825, the Judges (BEST, L. C. J., and ALEXANDER, L. C. B., being absent) met and heard this case argued by Law for the prisoner, when ABBOTT, L. C. J., BAYLEY, J., PARK, J., HOLROYD, J., BURROUGH, J., and LITTLEDALE, J., thought that the prisoner was not rightly convicted of stealing from the person, because from first to last the book remained about the person of the prosecutor. GRAHAM, B., GARROW, B., HULLOCK, B., and GASELEE, J., were of the contrary opinion; but the Judges were unanimous that the simple larceny was complete; and sentence of transportation for life having been passed, a pardon, on condition of transportation for seven years, was recommended. (a)

(a) Vide 2 East, P. C. 555, 556, 557.

REX v. WILLIAM THOMPSON.

Attempting illegally to arrest a man is sufficient to reduce killing the person making the attempt to manslaughter, 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.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. Baron GARROW at the Winter Assizes at Maidstone, in the year 1825, upon an indictment which charged him, first with maliciously stabbing and cutting Richard Sourtherden, with intent to murder; secondly, with intent to disable him; and thirdly, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

On the trial it appeared, that the prisoner, who was a journeyman shoemaker, on the 18th of November, 1824, applied to his master for some money, who refused to give it to him till he finished his work; on his subsequently urging for money, and his master refusing him, he became abusive, upon which his master threatened to send for a constable. The prisoner refused to finish his work, and said he would go up stairs and pack up his tools, and said, no constable should stop him; he came down stairs with his tools, and drew from the sleeve of his coat a naked knife, and said, he would do for the first bloody constable that offered to stop him; that he was ready to die, and would have a life before he lost his own, and then making a twisting or flourishing motion with the knife, put it up his sleeve again, and left the shop.

The master then applied to Southerden, the constable, to take the prisoner into custody; he made no charge, but said "he suspected he had tools of his, and was leaving his work undone :" the constable said, he would take him, if

the master would give him charge of him; they then followed the prisoner to the yard of the Bull's Head Inn; the prisoner was in a public privy there as if he had occasion there. The privy had no door to it. The master said, “That is the man; I give you in charge of him." The constable then said to the prisoner, " My good fellow, your master gives me charge of you, you must go with me." The prisoner, without saying any thing, presented a knife to the constable, and stabbed him under the left breast; he attempted to make a second, third, and fourth blow, which the constable parried off with his staff. The constable then aimed a blow at his head. The prisoner then ran away with the knife, and was afterwards secured.

The surgeon described the wound, as being two inches and a half in length, and one quarter of an inch deep, and inflicted with a sharp instrument like the knife produced. The knife appeared to have struck against one of the ribs and glanced off; had the point of the knife insinuated itself between the ribs and entered the cavity of the chest, death would have inevitably been the consequence; if it had struck two inches lower, death would have ensued; but the wound, as it happened, was not considered dangerous.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and sentence of death was passed upon him; but the learned Judge respited the execution, and submitted the case for the consideration of the Judges.

In Hilary Term, 1825, all the Judges (except BEST, L. C. J., and ALEXANDER, L. C. B., who were absent) met, and considered this case. The majority of the Judges, viz. ABBOTT, L. C. J., GRAHAM, B., Bayley, J., Park, J., GARROW, B., HULLOCK, B., LITTLEDALE, J., and GASELEE, J., held, that as the actual arrest would have been illegal, the attempt to make it when the prisoner was in such a situation that he could not get away, and when