REX v. HARRIS. INDICTMENT on the statute 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, ss. 11, The prosecutor had been appointed a special constable to execute a warrant of Mr. Ducarel, a magistrate, to take the prisoner on a charge of riot. The warrant was both shewn and read to the prisoner, and he drew a pistol, which was loaded to within half an inch of its muzzle, with gunpowder, paper, and two ill-shaped balls. This the prisoner pointed at the head of the prosecutor, within four inches of his ear, and pulled the trigger. The lock went down, and the prosecutor saw a single spark proceed from it. No mischief was done, and the pistol was taken from the prisoner. There was no priming found in the pan, but it was proved that that might have dropped out in the struggle to take the pistol from the prisoner. The prisoner said, in his defence, that the pistol was kept loaded for the protection of his house, which had been robbed, but that, to prevent his children from doing themselves mischief with it, he always kept a piece of paper in the pan, and another piece of paper twisted tightly, and run into the touch-hole, so as to prevent its being fired. The prisoner's son was called to prove that the pistol had been in this state the day before. Mr. Justice PATTESON, (in summing up).—If you think that the pistol had its touch-hole plugged, so that it could not by possibility do mischief, I think that the prisoner ought to be acquitted, because I do not think that a pistol (a) Set forth Carr. Supp. pp. 236, 237. 1831. REX บ. HARRIS. so circumstanced ought to be considered as loaded arms, within the meaning of this act of Parliament. Justice, for the prosecution. Verdict-Guilty (a). Watson, for the defence. [Attornies-Lucas, and Hulls.] (a) See the case of Rex v. Hughes, ante, p. 126. Aug. 17th. The practice of issuing county court processes in blank, for the up after they have been issued by the county clerk, is highly irregular. REX v. ROBERT COLLIER, Gent., One &c. INDICTMENT for forging a county court summons. The first count of the indictment charged the defendant with forging" a certain paper-writing, in the words and attornies to fill figures following;" (it then set out the summons verbatim), with intent to defraud John Collier. The third count stated the instrument to be "a certain summons, purporting to be a summons sued out from the county court of David Ricardo, Esq., Sheriff of Gloucestershire." The court summons, fifth count stated the instrument to be " a certain summons, purporting to be a summons under the seal of the office of David Ricardo, Esq., the said D. R. then being Sheriff of Gloucestershire." The second, fourth, and sixth counts, were for uttering the summons, knowing it to be forged; and the seventh and eighth were for obtaining the sum of 7s. 6d. by falsely pretending that the instrument was a genuine summons. And semblethat the filling up of a county or altering a distringas into a summons, after it has been so issued in blank, is a forgery at common law. The paper in question was a printed form of a distringas, which had had the words respecting the distraining struck through with a pen, and the word "summon" inserted instead. The whole of the filling up of the instrument was in the defendant's handwriting, and his name was to it, as the attorney who had sued it out. It purported to be a summons at the suit of a person named Allen. There was a seal to it, but whether this was the genuine seal of the county court or not, the witnessés could not state, as the impression was so defective (a). No entry of the issuing of this summons appeared in the books of the county court. This paper had been served on the prosecutor, and he had paid the defendant the costs, as if it had been a genuine summons, and also the debt which Allen claimed of him. It appeared, from the evidence of the county court clerk, that, when he was absent, the clerks in the office, if they were busy, sometimes gave out blank summonses to the attornies, who filled them up for themselves. Mr. Justice PATTESON.-I do not see that there is any evidence of an intent to defraud the prosecutor. He would have had just the same costs to pay if this summons had been sued out in the most regular manner. Curwood.-In cases of forgery at common law, there need be no intent to defraud any particular person (b). Mr. Justice PATTESON.-It is highly irregular; but I know that these summonses are sometimes given out in blank. I am not prepared to say, that, after the notice that this trial will give parties as to the impropriety of the practice, I should not hold, that this mode of filling up a summons, or of altering a distringas into a summons, was not forgery. Verdict-Not guilty. Curwood and Carrington, for the prosecution. Justice and Busby, for the defence. [Attornies-Ward, and Collier.] (a) Seals are affixed to many public documents in a very slovenly manner. The Great Seal affixed to a commission of bankrupt, which was given in evidence in a case of felony tried before Mr. Justice Patteson, at the Hereford Sum. Ass. 1831, was a mere lump of wax, which had no impression upon it; and the prisoner's coun VOL. V. sel objected, that this was not a (b) For the law respecting forg- M 1831. REX v. COLLIER, HOME SUMMER CIRCUIT. 1831. BEFORE LORD TENTERDEN, C. J., AND MR. JUSTICE GASELEE. On the trial of a THE prisoner was indicted for the murder of Richard prisoner who has made before Taylor. a magistrate a voluntary confession of his guilt, previous to the conclusion of the evidence against him, is taken down in writing, and signed by the prisoner, and attested by the magistrate's It appeared, that, on the 21st May, the prisoner and his younger brother were brought up to be examined before the magistrates at Rochester. They had both been in custody since the 17th, and various depositions had been which confession taken between that day and the 21st. On the 21st, several depositions were taken in the presence of the prisoner, and the younger brother was about to state a confession made to him by the prisoner on the previous evening, when the prisoner interrupted him, and made a full confession of his guilt. This confession, the magistrate's clerk immediately reduced into writing, and it was read over to the prisoner, who put his mark to it. It was attested by the maby the written gistrate's clerk thus:-"Taken and signed by the said John Heneker Bell, in the presence of." On the 23rd and two following days, other depositions were taken clerk; the pro per course is, for the clerk to give evidence of the prisoner's statements, refreshing his memory paper. in the presence of the prisoner; and, on the 25th, he was fully committed for trial. Some additional depositions were subsequently taken in the absence of the prisoner; some of them as late as the 6th of July. All these latter depositions were duly returned to the Court, including the prisoner's confession, but not the earlier depositions of the 21st of May and previously. It was proposed, on the part of the prosecution, to read the confession in evidence. Clarkson, for the prisoner, objected to its admissibility, on the following grounds-First, that it was made by the prisoner before the evidence against him had been gone through. On this point he referred to Rex v. Fagg (a), in which Garrow, B., expressed his opinion, that nothing which a prisoner stated before he knew what the evidence against him was, ought to be used to criminate him. Secondly, that some of the depositions were taken in the absence of the prisoner. Thirdly, that there were interlineations and erasures. And, fourthly, that there was a false attestation. GASELEE, J., after consulting Lord Tenterden, C. J., upon the objections, said-My Lord Tenterden agrees with me that the opinion of Mr. Baron Garrow in Rex v. Fagg is much too general, as it would go to exclude any acknowledgment of guilt made by a prisoner to a constable. He also agrees with me, that the interlineations and erasures are cured by the attestation, which cannot be called a false attestation, though it would have been more regular to have said, that the prisoner put his mark, as is customary in affidavits in the superior Courts. We are both of opinion, that it is no objection that some of the depositions were taken in the absence of the prisoner. We are also both of opinion, that the confession may be repeated by the ma (a) Vol. 4 of these Reports, p. 566. 1831. REX v. BELL. |