On the trial of an indictment on
the stat. 1 Vict. c. 85, for using an
instrument with intent to procure the
miscarriage of a woman, it is immate-
rial whether the woman is actually
pregnant or not. Reg. v. Goodchild,
293

ABSTRACT OF TITLE.
See VENDOR AND PURCHASER.

ABUSING FEMALE CHILDREN.

1. In a case of carnally knowing
and abusing a girl under ten years old,
it appeared, on an application on the
part of the prosecution to postpone
the trial, that the girl was only six
years old, and by reason of her age
quite incompetent to take an oath :-
Held, that the trial ought not to be
postponed in order that the child
might be instructed as to the nature
of an oath, but that there might be
cases of children of more matured in-
tellect, e. g. of ten or twelve years old,
who might be from neglected educa-

VOL. II.

tion incapable of being sworn, in which
such a postponement might be proper.
Reg. v. Nicholas,
246

2. Where, in such a case, the child,
from her tender age, was incompetent
to be sworn, the Judge would not re-
ceive evidence of what the child stated
to her mother shortly after the alleged
offence took place, nor allow the mo-
ther to prove that the child mentioned
to her the name of any particular per
Ibid.

son.

3. Semble, that on an indictment
for carnally knowing and abusing a
female child under the age of ten
years, which does not charge any as-
sault, the prisoner cannot be convict-
ed of an assault under the 11th sec-
tion of the stat. 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c.
85. Reg. v. Holcroft,
341

4. Boys under the age of fourteen
had connexion with a girl aged nine.
They were indicted for an assault.
The jury found them "guilty, the
child being an assenting party, but
that, from her tender years, she did
not know what she was about:"-
Held, that this was not an assault,
and that the boys were improperly
convicted. Reg. v. Read, 957

ACCESSORY BEFORE THE
FACT.

See INDICTMENT, 3.-MURDER, 14, 15.

ACQUITTAL.

See NOLLE PROSEQUI, 1.-TRESPASS, 1, 2.

1. In an action of trespass against three, who had all jointly and by one attorney, pleaded "not guilty by statute," the Judge, at Nisi Prius, would not, on the application of the defendants' counsel, allow one of the defendants to be acquitted immediately after the jury were sworn, in order that he might be called as a witness for the plaintiff, it being stated by the defendants' counsel that he appeared for all the defendants, and objected to such acquittal. Spencer v. Harrison, 429

2. Where it appears to the Court that one of several defendants has been joined in the action merely to exclude his evidence, it will direct a verdict to be entered for him at the close of the plaintiff's case. Nielau v. Hanny, 710

ADDRESSING THE JURY. Where counsel for a defendant opens facts to the jury, but does not go into any evidence, the counsel for the plaintiff has not an absolute right to reply, but it is in the discretion of the judge; the object of allowing a reply in such cases being, that injustice should not be done by facts being improperly opened, when the defendant's counsel has no intention of proving them. Naish v. Brown, 219 ADMINISTERING CANTHA

RIDES.

See ASSAULT, 5.

ADMINISTERING POISON. A. administered two cocculus indicus berries, entire in the pod, to a

tiff declaring on a deed recites it according to what he contends is its legal effect, and the judge should hold that that is not the legal effect of the deed, this would not be such a variance as should be amended at Nisi Prius. Bowers v. Nixon, 372

2. Where a cause had been made a remanet, but there was no respite of the award authorising the issue of the jury process:-Held, that the Court would order the error to be amended before the ensuing term, and proceed at once with the trial. Ward v. Dalton, 659

ANNUITY.

If an annuity be granted out of land, with power to the grantee and his assigns, in case the annuity be in arrear, to enter and retain possession of the land until payment, and the grantee enter for non-payment of the annuity, and die in possession of the land, the arrears being still unpaid: -Semble, that the executor of the grantee takes such an interest in the land as will entitle him to maintain an ejectment. Doe d. Sugden v. Weaver, 754

ANSWER IN CHANCERY.

See EVIDENCE, 26.

APPOINTMENT.

See EMBEZZLEMENT, 3, 4.

APPREHENSION. See NIGHT POACHING, 2, 3.

APPRENTICE.

1. A sum of 997. 19s. was paid as an apprentice fee, and was stated as the consideration in the indenture. Contemporaneously with the indenture, a written agreement was made between the master and the apprentice's

uncle, that the latter should pay 150%. more, for the board of the apprentice during the term, 501. of which was paid, and notes given for the residue. This was not stated in the indenture: -Held, that the consideration was truly stated, and that the indenture was not void, under the stat. 8 Ann. c. 9. Hankins v. Clutterbuck, 810

2. Semble, that if parties choose to divide their contracts, so as to lessen the amount of stamps, they may legally do so.

3. Form of plea.

ARREST.

Ibid. Ibid.

1. A barrister of the Home Circuit had attended the assizes at Hertford and at Chelmsford, which latter assizes had ended on Friday, the 6th of March. On Monday, the 9th of March, the commission-day at the next town (Maidstone), but before the commission was opened there, he was arrested at his own house, six miles from London, on a capias utlagatum, he having retainers in cases at Maidstone:-Held, that he was entitled to be discharged, as being a barrister on the circuit. Semble, that for this purpose a capias utlagatum is to be considered as civil process. The Case of the Sheriff of Kent,

197

2. A barrister of the Oxford Circuit had attended Court as a barrister at the Abingdon and the Oxford Assizes. The latter assizes concluded on the 25th of July, and the commission-day at the next town (Worcester) was the 27th of July. The barrister was taken on a ca. sa. at Oxford, on the 26th of July:-Held, that he was entitled to be discharged, as being a barrister on the circuit.

Held also, that a circuit is continuous from its commencement to its termination.

Held also, that the fact that the barrister had no brief at Abingdon or Y Y Y 2