1781. REX v. KENNETT. be in the power of the Court to receive any favourable circumstance in exculpation of the defendant's conduct, before any judgment was given against him. The verdict was brought in Guilty (a). Mr. Kennett's counsel were Mr. Erskine and Mr. Bond; his attorney, Mr. Woodhouse, solicitor of Bedlam and Bridewell. There was another information against Mr. Kennett, for discharging six prisoners out of the Poultry Compter (b); but it appearing that the defendant had acted in that instance in conjunction with seven aldermen, and other circumstances appearing in the defendant's favour, which had not before come to Mr. Attorney-General's knowledge, he was pleased to drop that prosecution; and the Special Jury were discharged. (a) No sentence was ever passed in this case, as Mr. Kennett died soon after the trial. (b) This information charged that John Lloyd, William Beard, Henry Jones, Solomon M'Daniel, John Hughes, and Thomas Dunkley, and divers others, to the number of five hundred, were riotously assembled, attempting to break open a certain prison, called the Poultry Compter; that Jos. Gates, then being a constable, apprehended them, and delivered them, the said J. L., W. B., H. J., S. M., J. H., and T. D, into the custody of Henry West, the keeper of the said prison, to be safely kept, it not then being a fit time to carry them before a justice of the peace for examination; and that the defendant, being one of the Justices of the city of London, and intending to obstruct and hinder the due course of justice, did order that the said J. L., W. B., H. J., S. M., J. H., and T. D., should be brought before him, and did order that they should be discharged, without any examination, and in the absence of, and without notice to, Joseph Gates; and that they were discharged and set at liberty. 297 OXFORD SPRING CIRCUIT. 1832. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE, AND MR. JUSTICE WORCESTER ASSIZES. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE. REX v. JOHN COX. 1832. March 6th. INDICTMENT for carnally knowing and abusing Sarah Where, on a Blakeway, a child under the age of ten years. It appeared that the prisoner, who was a man upwards of sixty years of age, had induced the child to go up stairs with him by promising to give her an apple; and that a woman who went up stairs soon after found a mark as if some one had lain on a bed which was there. It was also proved that the person of the child exhibited marks of violence; and that both she and the prisoner had gonorrhoea. The Jury found that there had been penetra- Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE passed sentence on the prisoner, VOL. V. X charge of rape, the Jury found that there had tion, but that been penetra no emission from there had been the prisonerThe 15 Judges held that the prisoner was rightly convict ed of the rape. 1832. REX v. Cox. and reserved the case for the consideration of the fifteen Judges, who held the conviction right (a). F. V. Lee, for the prosecution. Godson, for the prisoner. (a) For the report of this case we are indebted to the learned counsel engaged in it. This case overrules the decision in the case of Rex v. Russell, 2M. & M. 122. But see the cases of Rex v. Jennings, ante, Vol. 4, p. 249; and Rex v. Wedge, infra, and Rex v. Gammon, post, p. 321. STAFFORD ASSIZES. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE TAUNTON. March 12th. On an indictment for carnally knowing and abusing a female child under ten years of age, the best evidence of the age of the child ought to be produced. Where an offence of this REX v. James Wedge. INDICTMENT for carnally knowing and abusing Mary Underhill, a child under the age of ten years. The offence was alleged to have been committed on the 5th of February, 1832. To prove the child under ten years old at the time of the alleged offence, the father of the child was called; he stated, that he was in the habit of going out with boats for a week or a fortninght at a time; and that, in the month of February, 1822, he went from home for a few days, and that his wife had not then 5th of February, been confined; and that, on his return, on the 9th of kind was com mitted on the 1832, and the child's father proved, that, on his return after an absence from home of a few days, on the 9th of Feb., 1822, he found that the child had been born, and was told by her grandmother that she had been born the day before; and the register of baptisms shewed that the child had been baptized on the 9th of Feb., 1822: it was held not sufficient to prove that the child was under ten years old. February, 1822, he found that this child had been born; and he was told by his wife's mother, that it had been born the day before. An examined copy of the register of the baptism of the child was put in; and from that it appeared that the child had been baptized on the 9th of February, 1822. The mother of the child was dead, but the grandmother was living at the time of the trial. Mr. Justice TAUNTON (having conferred with Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE).-My learned brother concurs with me in thinking that this evidence is not sufficient. The whole amount of the evidence to prove the time of the child's birth is the declaration of the grandmother to the father. The father was from home at the time of the birth, and the mother is dead; but still the grandmother might have been called. As this is a matter of so much importance in a case of this kind, we think that the best evidence ought to be adduced. Verdict-Not guilty. Corbet for the prosecution. See the case of Rex v. Cox, ante, p. 297; and Rex v. Gammon, post, p. 321. REX v. HILDITCH and Others. INDICTMENT for a robbery. The case for the prosecution had been closed, and the defence of the prisoners was an alibi, viz. that they were at a public-house, at a considerable distance from the place at which the robbery was committed. is that which goes to cut down the defence, without being any confirmation of the original case. 1832. REX V. HILDITCH. W. J. Alexander, for the prosecution, wished to call a witness in reply, to prove, that he saw all the prisoners near the spot at which the robbery was committed; and that, therefore, they could not have been at the publichouse. Mr. Justice TAUNTON.-Proving that the parties were near the place at which the offence was committed is evidence in chief and not evidence in reply. Whatever is a confirmation of the original case cannot be given as evidence in reply: and the only evidence which can be given as evidence in reply, is that which goes to cut down the case on the part of the defence, without being any confirmation of the case on the part of the prosecution. The evidence was rejected. is charged with embezzlement, the Judge, before the indictment is found, will was found by the Grand Jury, the prisoner having been held to bail order the prosecutor to furnish the prisoner with a particular of the charges, if the prisoner make an affidavit that he does not know what the charges are, and that he has applied to the prosecutor for a particular, and it has been refused. |
