After both the prisoner's counsel had addressed the Jury, Mr Justice BOSANQUET informed the prisoner, that if, in addition to what had been said by his counsel, he wished to add any thing himself, he was at liberty to do so. The prisoner made a statement of considerable length. to the Court and Jury. Mr. Justice BOSANQUET left it to the Jury to say whether the prisoner had thrown the stones with either of the intents stated in the indictment. The Jury found the prisoner guilty on the fifth Denman, A. G., Jervis, Campbell, Shepherd, and Maule, for the Crown. Swabey and Carrington, for the prisoner. [Attornies-Maule & Bouchier, and Frankum.] (a) Sentence was passed on the prisoner; but he was afterwards reprieved. By the stat. 54 Geo. 3, c. 146, the sentence in cases of high treason is, that the person "shall be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution, and there be hanged by the neck until such person be dead; and that afterwards the head shall be severed from the body of such person, and the body, divided into four quarters, shall be disposed of as his Majesty and his successors shall think fit." But, by section 2 of the same statute, his Majesty may by his sign manual direct that the party shall not be drawn on a hurdle; or that the party shall be beheaded instead of being hanged; and may order the disposal of the body, head, and quarters. 1832. REX บ. COLLINS. 1832. BEFORE MR. BARON GURNEY. July 17th. A prisoner by the magis trate, that, if he makes any statement, it REX v. GREEN and Others. INDICTMENT for burglary.-Two of the prisoners ought to be told had made statements before the committing magistrates. The magistrates' clerk stated, that, before the prisoners said any thing, they were not only told that they must not evidence against expect any favour from confessing, but they were also dissuaded from confessing. may be used as him; and that he must not ex pect any favour if he confesses: but the magis trate ought not Mr. Baron GURNEY.-That was wrong. A prisoner to dissuade him ought to be told that his confessing will not operate at all from confessing. in his favour; and that he must not expect any favour be cause he makes a confession; and that, if any one has told him that it will be better for him to confess, or worse for him if he does not, he must pay no attention to it; and that any thing he says to criminate himself will be used as evidence against him on his trial. After that admonition, it ought to be left entirely to himself whether he will make any statement or not: but he ought not to be dissuaded from making a perfectly voluntary confession, because that is shutting up one of the sources of justice. Verdict-Guilty. Justice, for the prosecution. [Attornies for the prosecution-Ward & Son.] 1832. (Civil Side.) BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BOSANQUET. SHELLEY, Administratrix of SHELLEY, v. FORD. THE first count of the declaration stated, that the intestate was the owner of a horse, which had been by him let to hire to one William Lewis; and that the defendant, to the injury of the intestate's reversionary interest in the horse, took it into his possession, and sold it. There was a similar count, stating the whole matter, except the let ting of the horse, to have occurred since the death of the deceased; and there were also counts in trover. Plea-Not guilty. It appeared that, in the month of September, 1830, the intestate had let the horse on hire to Captain Lewis, for one month; and it was proved, by the admission of the defendant himself, that, in the month of November, 1830, he had bought the horse of Captain Lewis for 10%. which was then the full value of it; and that, after keeping it at livery for some time, he had sold it. Justice, for the defendant.-I submit that this action cannot be maintained. The defendant acted bona fide in the buying of the horse; and he has at least a lien upon it for the amount of 10%., the sum which he has paid for it; and, in any view of the case, that sum ought to have been tendered before any action was brought. Mr. Justice BOSANQUET (in summing up).-In this case the property in this horse was in the intestate, and Captain Lewis had only a limited interest in it; he, therefore, 1832. SHELLEY v. FORD. when he sold it, could give the defendant no better title than he had got himself. Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 157. Curwood, Carrington, and Jeffreys Williams, for the plaintiff. Justice, for the defendant. [Attornies-C. Carus Wilson, and G. S. Ford.] In general, no sale by a person who has no right to sell, is good against the rightful owner, except it be made in market overt; and it is laid down (Bac. Abr. tit. Fair, E) that every sale made in a fair or market overt, transfers a complete property in the thing sold to the vendee, however illegal the title of the vendor. In London, every day is market-day, except Sunday; so that a sale on any of these days is as good as it would be on the fair or market-day in the country; and in London every shop, except a pawnbroker's, is a market overt for such things as the owner, professes to trade in; but in the country, the market overt is confined to the particular place or spot set apart by custom for the sale of particular goods. However, the property in a horse is not changed as against the rightful owner, unless the provisions of the stat. 2 & 3 P. & M. c. 7, and 31 Eliz. c. 12, (which will be found in Burn's Justice, tit. Horses), are complied with. See also the case of Gimson v. Woodfull, ante, Vol. 2, p. 41. As to factors and agents dealing with goods intrusted to them, see the stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 94: and the case of Dyer v. Pearson, 4 D. & R. 653, as to the effect of the true owners allowing another to hold himself out as the owner of goods. As to the restitution of stolen goods on the conviction of the offender, see the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 57, which is set out Carr. Sup. 334. OXFORD ASSIZES. BEFORE MR. BARON GURNEY. 1832. DOE on the demise of CRAKE v. BROWN. July 19th. EJECTMENT. When this cause was called on in its A counsel, to order, it appeared that no brief had been delivered for the lessor of the plaintiff, and the attorney was not in Court. whom a retainer in a cause has been given, no brief having been delivered, cannot with Talfourd stated that he had a retainer for the lessor of draw the record. the plaintiff, and wished to withdraw the record. Mr. Baron GURNEY.-A retainer without a brief does not authorize you to withdraw the record. Mr. Jervis, you are for the defendant; do you wish the Jury to be sworn, and to nonsuit the plaintiff? Mr. Jervis.-Yes, my Lord. The Jury were sworn, and the plaintiff— Talfourd, for the lessor of the plaintiff. Jervis and Carrington, for the defendant. [Attornies-Mathews, and Eyre.] Nonsuited. |
