1. Where the specification of a patent for a chemical process contained words that, taken in their ordinary and natural sense, directed an act to be done, which would be fatal to the success of the process, although the meaning intended might be gathered from the context:-Held, that the specification was insufficient to sustain the patent. Beard v. Egerton, 667

2. Before the date of the patent, part of the garancine (colouring matter) in madder had been obtained by boiling, but the spent (boiled) madder still contained garancine; the whole of the garancine had also been obtained by a known process;- -the patent was for the application of the latter process to spent madder:-Held, that it was not a new manufacture. Steiner v. Heald, 1022

PERJURY.

See EVIDENCE, 25.-FALSE ANSWER. -FALSE OATII.-REGISTRAR, 1, 3.

1. In cases of perjury, although an assignment of perjury must be proved by two witnesses, it is not necessary to prove by two witnesses every fact which goes to make out the assignment of perjury. Reg. v. Roberts, 607

2. A., to prove an alibi for B., had sworn that B. was not out of his sight between the hours of 8 A. M. and 9 A.M. on a certain day, and on this perjury was assigned. Proof by one witness that between those hours A. was at one place on foot, and by another witness that between those hours B. was walking at another place six miles off:

4. In an indictment for perjury, it was alleged, that A. made his will, and thereby appointed B. his executor:-Held, that the production of the probate was the proper proof of this allegation; but, that, if it had been necessary to prove that A. had devised real estates, the original will must have been produced and one of the attesting witnesses called. Reg. v. Turner, 732

5. In an indictment for perjury, it was averred, that a suit was instituted in the Prerogative Court by C. against B., to dispute the validity of a codicil to a will:-Held, that the production of the original allegations of both parties in the suit, signed by their advocates, and proof of the advocates' signatures, and that they acted as advocates in that court, such allegations being produced from the registry of that court was sufficient proof of the averment, and that the caveat need not be produced. Ibid.

6. On the trial of an indictment for perjury, assigned on an affidavit sworn in the Queen's Bench, proof of the defendant's signature to the affidavit, and proof, that, under a jurat, "sworn in open court at Westminster Hall, the 10th day of June, 1846," the words, "By the Court," are in the handwriting of one of the Masters of the Court, is sufficient evidence of the swearing of the affidavit in the Court of Queen's Bench, without any further proof that the Master was in Court when the affidavit was sworn. Ibid.

7. On an indictment for perjury, in the usual form, setting forth, with proper innuendoes, a copy of a deposition before a magistrate, written in the English language, and signed by the defendant, he may be convicted

on proof of a verbal deposition in the Welsh language, of which the written deposition signed by him is the substance. Reg. v. Thomas,

806 8. Form of indictment for perjury in the county court. 823

PLEADING.

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 1, 10.FALSE IMPRISONMENT, 1.-GOODS SOLD, 1, 2.-INDICTMENT.-MONEY LENT.-NEW ASSIGNMENT.-TRESPASS, 2.

1. In an action for assaulting the plaintiff, the defendants pleaded, that the plaintiff was beating "a certain boy, whose name is to the defendants unknown," and that the defendants, to prevent his beating "the said boy," quietly laid their hands on him. Replication, that "the said boy" in the plea mentioned “. was one Barnes W.,

and was and is the lawful son of the plaintiff," of the age of ten years, and that "the said Barnes W." refused to obey his lawful commands, whereupon the plaintiff moderately chastised him. Rejoinder, that the plaintiff, at the time when &c., was beating "the said Barnes W." with more violence than was proper and reasonable. Rejoinder, that the plaintiff "did not beat" &c. the said Barnes W. "with more violence than was proper and reasonable." On the part of the plaintiff, evidence was given, that the plaintiff, just before the defendants interfered with him, had been beating his son Barnes W., who was ten years old, with a strap, but not immoderately; but the last witness for plaintiff stated that the plaintiff had another son, aged eight. It was proved for the defendants, that, after the plaintiff had beaten his elder son, Barnes W., he began beating the younger, when the defendants laid hold of him:-Held, that, on these pleadings, the issue was limited to the

question of the excessive beating of Barnes W., and that anything the plaintiff did to the younger boy was not in issue; and the judge at the trial would not allow any amendment as to the name of Barnes W., as the two boys had both been beaten, and if the issue had been different the plaintiff might have adduced other evidence as to the extent of the beating of the younger boy. Winterburn v. Brooks, 16

2. To assumpsit on a guarantee, the defendant pleaded, that the guarantee was given by him on certain terms, which limited the liability of him the defendant thereunder, and the plaintiff traversed this plea :-Held, that in this state of the record, the plaintiff was not at liberty to object to the admissibility of evidence to prove what those terms were, on the ground that they were not shewn to have been reduced into writing. Galley v. Taylor, 551

6. Plea, that the defendant did not accept goods as a carrier. 680, 790

7. Plea, that the goods were removed to avoid a distress, and that the landlord seized them in the hands of the carrier. 680 8. Plea, that the package did not contain the articles specified in the declaration. 790

9. Plea, that the goods were not stolen by the defendant's servants. Ibid.

10. Plea, that the plaintiff did not tender the package to be carried, modo et forma. Ibid.

11. Plea, that the plaintiff was not willing to pay the proper amount of carriage modo et forma. Ibid.

12. Plea, that the plaintiff had recovered against another person for the same cause of action. 683

13. New assignment thereto. Ibid. 14. Plea, in actions for false imprisonment, that a felony was committed, and the plaintiff apprehended on suspicion, stating the grounds of suspicion.

422

15. Plea, that one assured fraudulently allowed a third person to hold the policy, and to obtain money on it. 672 16. Plea, that the full consideration was not stated in an indenture of apprenticeship.

POACHING.

See NIGHT-POACHING.

811

POISON (ADMINISERING.) See ADMINISTERING POISON.

POOR BOX. See LARCENY, 4.

POST LETTER.

1. The president of a department in the Post-office put a half sovereign

into a letter, on which he wrote a fictitious address, and dropped the letter with the money in it into the letterbox of a post-office receiving-house, where the prisoner was employed in the service of the Post-office. The prisoner stole the letter and money:— Held, that this was a stealing of a "post letter" containing money, within the stat. 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 26; and that this was not the less a "post letter" within that enactment, because it had a fictitious address. Reg. v. Young, 466

2. S., post-mistress of G., received from A. a letter unsealed, but addressed to B., and with it 17., for a post-office order, 3d. for the poundage on the order, 1d. for the postage, and 1d. for the person who got the order.

S. gave the letter unscaled, and the money to the prisoner, who was the letter-carrier from G. to L., telling him to get the order at L., and inclose it in the letter, and post the letter at L. The prisoner destroyed the letter, never procured the order, and kept the money:-Held, that he was indictable under sect. 26 of the stat. 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, for stealing, embezzling, and destroying a post letter, he being at the time in the employ of the Postoffice. Reg. v Bickerstaff,

POST OFFICE.

761

See FORGERY, 4.-LARCENY, 3, 6, 12.

POSTPONING TRIAL.

1. An application to postpone the trial of a prisoner charged with murder, in order to afford an opportunity of investigating the evidence and characters of certain witnesses who had not been examined before the committing magistrate, but who were to be called for the prosecution, to prove previous attempts by the accused on the life of the deceased, was refused. refused. Reg. v. Johnson, 354

RAILWAY AND RAILWAY
COMPANY.

See ATTORNEY, 1.-FALSE PRETENCE, 4.-FORGERY, 12, 19.

1. A railway act enacted,-with reference to the purchase of lands by the company, that, if the owner of any such lands should "fail to make out a title to the lands in respect whereof such purchase-money or compensation should be payable," the company should deposit the purchasemoney in the bank; and that thereupon all interest in the lands in respect whereof such purchase-money should have been deposited should vest in the company:-Held, that, in order to enable the company to avail themselves of this provision, they must have previously applied to the owner of the lands to furnish them with an abstract of his title thereto. Doe d. Hutchinson v. The Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway Company, 162

2. In an action against railway provisional-committee men, under contracts entered into by the committee— Held, that, to render defendants liable, it was necessary to prove not only that they were members of the committee, but that they knew it to be still in operation, and also that the expenses incurred were reasonable and usual. Barrett v Blunt, 271

3. In an action to recover the amount of deposit-money paid on certain railway shares, the prospectus of the railway company setting forth that 120,000 shares would be issuedHeld, 1st, that the allotment of only 58,000 shares was a breach of contract, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on that ground; 2ndly, that, if it was agreed that the company should go on with the smaller number of shares, that was virtually a new contract, from which any individual shareholder might withdraw. Wontner v. Shairp,

273

4. A bought-note for the purchase of railway shares, signed by the purchaser, is not a "memorandum, letter, or agreement made for, or relating to, the sale of goods, wares, or merchandises," within the fourth exemption in the Stamp Act, 52 Geo. 3, c. 184. Knight v. Barber, 333

5. The defendants were provisionalcommittee men of a railway company, and were appointed, but without their consent being obtained, members of the acting committee. Advertisements to that effect were published, and became known to them, but they never attended any meetings of the company or the committees:- Held, that they were not liable for the contracts made in their absence. Griffinv. Beverley,

648

6. The defendant was a provisionalcommittee man, and had applied for shares in a railway company, which, however, never issued any shares, and the secretary of which, appointed,

however, by the promoters only, had entered into certain contracts which he communicated to the committee:Held, that the defendant was not liable on such contracts; and that the tender of 40l. to the attorney of the company, as it did not appear on what account it was tendered, and he had dealings and other business with him, was not evidence of an admission to go to the jury. Barker v. Lyndon, 651

7. The plaintiff was appointed engineer to a railway company at a meeting of the provisional committee. The defendant had previously agreed to join that committee, and had forwarded applications for shares, but whether before or after the meeting, was uncertain. An individual answering to the defendant's name was present at the meeting, and visited the office of the Company:-Ield, that there was no evidence to go to the jury of the defendant's identity with that individual. Giles v. Cornfoot, 653

8. Where an attorney of a railway company contracted as such, but managed all the concerns of the company, there being no acting committee:Held, that the attorney was not personally liable under such contracts. Russell v. Reece, 669

9. The plaintiff, by an agent at B., received small parcels, and had them put into a hamper, addressed to himself, at L., and sent by the London and North Western Railway. These small parcels, which were addressed to different persons, it was the business of the plaintiff to deliver as addressed. In its transit on the railway, a small parcel, addressed to Mr. K., was abstracted from the hamper:Held, in an action by the plaintiff against the company, for loss of the parcel, that it was sufficient to prove that it was not in the hamper when delivered to the plaintiff by the company, and that it was not necessary to go into evidence to shew that the com