Slike strani
PDF
ePub

1831.

REX

v. ВАС LER.

man had

put his name on the check. Mr. Newman was not called as a witness; but it was proved, that the name on the check was not of his hand-writing, and that the prisoner had never been in his service. It was also proved, by a clerk of Messrs. Jones Loyd & Co., that No. 43, Lothbury, was their banking house, and that no person of the initial and name G. Andrewes kept any account there, or had any right to draw checks on their house.

Mr. Justice J. Parke (in summing up).—You must be satisfied not only that the prisoner uttered this check, but also that it is a forgery, and that he knew it to be so. Now, we find that he stated that he was a servant of Mr. Newman, and that Mr. Newman had put his name on the back of the check: but it is shewn, not only that the name is not of Mr. Newman's hand-writing, but that the prisoner never was in his service. There is no proof as to who this G. Andrewes is, and the question therefore is, whether there is evidence sufficient to satisfy you that Andrewes is a fictitious person. That being a negative, it is not easy to prove, and the evidence from which you are asked to infer it, is that this check is drawn upon Jones Loyd & Co., no person of that initial and name having any right to draw on them. My learned brother and myself, after conferring, think that this is sufficient prima facie evidence that he is a fictitious person; and if there was any such real person either keeping cash at this banking house or not, the prisoner might have produced him or have given some evidence on the subject. If it had turned out that a person named Andrewes had drawn upon Jones Loyd & Co., without funds, that would have been a fraud and not a forgery; but, we think, in point of law, that there is sufficient evidence of Andrewes being a fictitious person, more especially as the prisoner does not produce any evidence, nor even make any statement as to who Andrewes is.

Verdict-Guilty, on the second count.
See the case of Rex v. King, post, p. 123.

1831.

were, but struck no blow. A. stabbed B.:

more than was

July 2nd.

Rex v. BOURNE. A. was fighting INDICTMENT on the stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, ss. 11, 12, with his brother for stabbing and wounding James Lightfoot, with intent to this B. laid hold murder him. There were two other counts, laying the inof A., and held him down upon tent to be to disable him, and to do him some grievous a locker on board the barge bodily harm. in which they

The prosecutor stated that the prisoner and his brother,

who was a boy about six years younger than himself, were Held, that if B. fighting on board the barge Alfred, which was lying in the did nothing

West India Docks, and in which he (the prosecutor) als sufficient to pre- worked; that he laid hold of the prisoner to prevent him vent A. from beating his bro- from beating his brother, and held him down on a locker, ther, and had died of this stab, but did not strike him; and that the prisoner stabbed him the offence of A, with a knife just above the knee. would have been murder; but that if B. did more than was neces- The prisoner in his defence said, that the prosecutor sary to prevent had knocked him down. the beating of A.'s brother, it would have been manslaughter Mr. Justice J. PARKE (in summing up).- The prosecuonly.

tor states that he was merely restraining the prisoner from beating his brother, which was quite proper on his part; and he says, that he did not strike any blow. If you are of opinion that the prosecutor did nothing more than was necessary to prevent the prisoner from beating his brother, the crime of the prisoner, if death had ensued, would not have been reduced to manslaughter; but if you think that the prosecutor did more than was necessary to prevent the prisoner from beating his brother, or that he struck any blows, then I think that it would. You will, therefore, consider whether any thing was done by the prosecutor more than was necessary, or whether he gave any blows before he was cut.

Verdict-Guilty, on the third count.

1831.

Rex v. PEARSON.

July 3rd. SEE ante, Vol. 4, p. 572. In this case the fifteen Judges An indictment decided that the 11th and 12th counts of the indictment

for stealing a

bank note did were bad, as they did not conclude contra formam statuti. not conclude

contra formam

statuti :-Held, by the fifteen Judges, that it was bad.

OLD BAILEY JANUARY SESSION, 1832.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PARK, MR. JUSTICE J. PARKE,

AND MR. BARON BOLLAND.

1832.

both her hands

Rex v. BRIDGET CULKIN.

Jan. 7th. MURDER. The indictment charged that the prisoner A: was charged

with suffocating in and upon one Margaret Duffy “ did make an assault, B. by placing and that the said Bridget Culkin, with both her hands about the neck about the neck of the said Margaret Duffy, the said neck of B:-Held,

that A. might and throat of the said Margaret Duffy then and there be convicted feloniously, wilfully, and of her malice aforethought, did dictment if B. grasp, squeeze, and press, and by the grasping, squeezing, in any manner

, and pressing aforesaid,” did suffocate and strangle the either by A. or

by any other deceased.

It appeared that Margaret Duffy, a child of about six being privy to years of age, had been suffocated for the purpose as was supposed of being dissected. The surgeon said, that her

The phrase death had been caused by the pressure of a hand on the neck," in an in

dictment for back of the neck, another hand being held over the mouth.

murder, is There was evidence tending to shew that a man and good, and is woman had committed the offence; and there was much same objection circumstantial evidence tending to shew the guilt of the breasabout the prisoner.

person in her presence, she

the commission of the offence.

" about the

not open to the

1832.

Rex

Clarkson, for the prisoner, objected that the mode of the death was improperly stated in the indictment, as it was not stated that the hand over the mouth was the cause of the death.

CULKIN.

Mr. Justice PARK.-It is the same kind of death.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-If the death was proved to be by suffocation at all it would be sufficient.

Clarkson.—The indictment states the pressure to have been about the neck. In stating a wound, it is laid down by Lord Hale (a), that about the breast, circiter pectus, would not be sufficient.

Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-About the breast might mean only near the breast, but about the neck means round it.

The prisoner was called on for her defence.

Mr. Justice J. Parke in summing up).- If you are satisfied that this child came by her death by suffocation or strangulation, it is not necessary that the prisoner should have done it with her own hands; for, if it was done by any other person in her presence, she being privy to it, and so near as to be able to assist, she may be properly convicted on this indictment.

Verdict-Not guilty.

Adolphus and Heaton, for the prosecution.

Clarkson, for the prisoner.

[Attorney for the prosecution—T. T. Taylor.]

(a) In 2 H. P. C. 185, it is laid pectus, nor super partes posteriores down, that an indictment for mur- corporis; but super faciem or caput, der, stating the wound to be su- or super dextram partem corporis, per brachium, or manum, or latus, or in infima parte ventris, are cerwithout saying whether right or tain enough. See the case of Rex left, is not good; nor is circiter v. Tye, Carr. Supp. 35.

1832.

" Samuel

the result of in

Rex v. KING.

Jan. Ich The first count of the indictment charged the prisoner Where a bill with having forged a bill of exchange, drawn by one

purported to be

accepted by Thomas Webb, accepted by one Samuel Knight, and

Knight, Marketindorsed by the said Thomas Webb, with intent to de- place, Birming

ham"-It was fraud a person named Beit.

held, on an inIn the other counts of the indictment the prisoner was

dictment for the

forgery of the charged respectively with uttering the bill, knowing it to acceptance, that be forged; with forging the acceptance; with uttering the quiries made at bill, knowing the acceptance to be forged; with forging the prosecutor,

Birmingham by the indorsement, and with uttering the bill knowing the who was not ac

quainted with indorsement to be forged.

the place, was From the evidence of Mr. Beit, the prosecutor, who Jury, though

evidence for the was a dealer in German silver, it appeared that the pri

neither the best

nor the usual soner applied to him about the beginning of the month of evidence given

to prove the June, saying that he wished to purchase some German non-existence of silver, that his name was King, of King-square, which was name is used.

a party whose chiefly his property, and derived its name from him; that he was out of business himself, but was requested to make the purchase by some friends in the country. He left at that time without taking any of the metal; but came again on the 9th, and brought with him a person whom he described as a manufacturing man. The metal was to be paid for in cash, and the prisoner took from his pocket the bill of exchange in question, and said it had a little time to run, and he could not very well get it discounted, and therefore he would leave it with the prosecutor till the Monday following. He did not come again at all. The bill purported to be accepted by

“ Samuel Knight, Market-place, Birmingham.” The second indorsement on the bill was proved to be in the prisoner's handwriting. The prosecutor stated that he went twice to Birmingham to inquire after Knight, and, on the second occasion, inquired at the bank there, and at a place where the overseers of the poor met. He also stated that he had made

« PrejšnjaNaprej »