« PrejšnjaNaprej »
should be allowed till after the party is taken and brought to his trial (a).
F. V. Lee.-I am informed, that since his discharge the prisoner is not to be found. Here, theprosecutor has preferred his indictment, and has done all that he could do; and for the discharge of the prisoner he is in no way to blame.
Mr. Justice TAUNTON.-I think that, as the bill has been preferred and found, I may, under the word "prosecuted” in the section you refer to, order the expenses. But, if the witnesses had merely appeared here according to their recognizances,and no bill had been preferred, I think that I should have had no authority.
F. V. Lee, for the prosecution.
(a) See the case of Rex v. Hunter, ante, Vol. 3, p. 591.
See the stat. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, ss.
22 to 30, respecting the allowance
Rex v. Evans. False pretence. The indictment charged that B. E. A person who on &c., at &c., a certain counterfeit letter in writing, in the on delivering a name of one John Roe, as a true letter of the proper hand- forged letter, writing of the said John Roe, falsely, fraudulently, and de- the bearer W.T. ceitfully, to one John Brooks did deliver, and also did four yards of then and there falsely pretend to the said John Brooks, J. R., is not inthat he had brought the same from the said John Roe for dictable for ob
taining goods by false pretence,
as this is an uttering a forged request for the delivery of goods, which is a felony under sect. 10 of the stat. 1 Will. 4, c. 66.
have for J. R.
the articles specified therein; and by which false and counterfeit letter it was mentioned, that the said John Roe desired the said John Brooks to supply the bearer thereof with four yards of Irish linen and a waistcoat; and which said false and counterfeit letter is as follows, that is to say:
“ Mr. Brooks-- Please to let the bearer, William Turton, have for J. Roe four yards of Irish linen and a waistcoat. " Jan. 6, 1833.
“ John Roe.”
By means of which counterfeit letter and of the said false pretences, the said B. E: did obtain &c.
Mr. Justice TAUNTON.- This is a forged request for the delivery of goods. This case comes within the 10th sect. of the stat. 11 Geo. 4 &1 Will. 4, c. 66 (a). It is clearly an uttering of a forged request for the delivery of goods.
W.J. Alexander, for the prosecution.--I submit that it is still a false pretence within the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29,
Mr. Justice TAUNTON.-No; it is uttering a forged re
(a) By which it is enacted,“ that if any person shall forge or alter, or shall offer, utter, dispose of, or put off, knowing the same to be forged or altered, any deed, bond, or writing obligatory, or any court roll, or copy of any court roll relating to any copybold or customary estate, or any acquittance or receipt either for money or goods, or any accountable receipt either for money or goods, or for any note, bill, or other security for payment of money, or any warrant, order,
or request for the delivery or transfer of goods, or for the delivery of any note, bill, or other security for payment of money, with intent to defraud any person whatsoever, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be transported beyond the seas for life, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years or less than two years."
quest for the delivery of goods. It is a felony, and not a misdemeanor. The prisoner must be acquitted.
W. J. Alexander, for the prosecution.
F. V. Lee, for the prisoner.
been built for
not under the
Rex v. HauGHTON.
March 15th. ARSON. The prisoner was charged with setting fire A building had to an outhouse;" and in another count with setting fire to a “stable,” the property of Joseph Owen. In other bricks, but after
wards was roofcounts, the outhouse and stable were stated to be the pro- ed, and a door
put to it. In perty of John Sparrow.
this place the
prosecutor kept It appeared that the place burnt had been an oven to
a cow; adjoinbake bricks, and that the prosecutor had made a door-way ing to it, but (with a door) into it, and had put boards and turf over the same roof, was
a lean-to, in vent-hole at the top. It also appeared that two poles had
which another been fixed across it at about half its height, on which person kept a boards had been laid, so as to make a loft-floor. In this the prosecutor
nor the person place, the prosecutor kept a cow; and adjoining to it, of whom he
rented this but not under the same roof, was a lean-to, in which a
building had person named Cope kept a horse; but this latter building any house or
farm-yard near was not injured by the fire.
it, nor did any
with any dwellC. Phillips, for the prisoner.—I submit that this indict. ing-house, the
nearest dwelling ment must fail. This was a building for burning bricks, being one hun
dred yards off, which has latterly been used as a cow-house, but never as and not belonga stable. It is not a stable, as it was only used for cows;
ing to either the
prosecutor or indeed, the witness calls it a cow-house.
his landlord:Held, that the
building was The prosecutor being recalled, said, that the building ner act out
neither a stable was about one hundred yards from any dwelling-house, house; and that and that the owner of the nearest dwelling-house had no it on fire (the
he was not indictable for arson.
wall connect it
interest in it; and that no dwelling-house or farm-yard of
C. Phillips.—This is not an outhouse. It is not within the curtilage. The next point is, whether it is a stable.
Mr. Justice Taunton. I think that it is not properly described as a stable.-The question is, whether it is an outhouse?
C. Phillips.-On that point, I would refer to the case of Elsmore v. St. Briavel's (a). That case shews, that where a house was built for a particular purpose, but was used for other purposes, it could not be described as a building of the kind that it was used for. There, though the house had been used as a barn, and had never been used for any thing else, yet, being three stories high, and built as a dwelling-house, it was held not sufficient to describe it as a barn. The building, in the present case, was a brick oven, used as a cow-house. I also submit that this is not an outhouse, as it is not attached to any dwellinghouse, or within the curtilage of any dwelling-house.
Greaves, on the same side.—I will call your Lordship’s attention to the common law, and then to the acts of Parliament, and I think I shall shew that the legal meaning of the term “outhouse" has never been altered. Mr. Serjt. Russell (6) says, in treating of the common law respecting the burning of a house—“ It may be briefly observed, that the term “house' extends not only to the dwelling-house, but to all outhouses which are parcel thereof, though not adjoining thereto, or under the same roof (of which kind of outhouses mention has been made in a former part of this work);" and he then refers to the
(a) 8 B. & C. 461; and 2 M. & R. 514. (6) Russ. Cr. & Misd. 488.
cases of such outhouses within the curtilage, in which,