pany:-Held, that this was sufficient proof of the agent's authority to sign such memorandums; and that the other policies, on which such memorandums had been signed, need not be produced. Brockelbank v. Sugrue, 21 PRIVILEGED COMMUNICA TION. See ATTORNEY, 6, 7.—Evidence, 8. PRIZE FIGHT. See MANSLAughter. PROMOTIONS, 1, 435, 606. RAPE. 1. Where on a charge of rape the jury found that there had been penetration, but that there had been no emission from the prisoner, the fifteen Judges held, that the prisoner was rightly convicted of the rape. Rex v. Cox, 297 1. A., having a cause of action against B., is discharged under the Lords' act, but does not execute any assignment, alleging that he has no property. After his discharge, he gives B. a release: this release is good; and therefore, if in an action by A. against C., it appear that A. might sue B., if he did not recover against C., A. may, notwithstanding this discharge, release B. and make him a competent witness. Briant v. Eicke, 44 2. A defendant executed a release to a witness; but, before it was given to the witness, it was handed to the counsel on the opposite side for his inspection. He objected to the form of it, and it was altered, and the defendant re-executed it:-Held, that it was sufficient, and that it did not require a new stamp. Alten v. Farren, 513 REPAIRS. See LANDLORD and Tenant, 3. REPLY. RETAINER. 2. 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 kind was committed on the 5th of February, 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 February, A. published a handbill, offering 1822: it was held not sufficient to a reward to any person who would prove that the child was under ten give such information as would lead years old. Rex v. Wedge, 298 to the discovery of the murder of 3. If, in a case of B. there has rape, C. knowing of this handbill, not been sufficient penetration to rupgave the information:-Held, that ture the hymen, the offence is not C. was entitled to the reward, alcomplete. Rex v. Gammon, though it was found by the jury that C. did not give the information in consequence of the offered reward, but from other motives. Held also, that the first person who gives the RECEIVER. 321 A receiver, appointed by the Court of Chancery, has a right to distrain REWARD. 1. An indictment on the riot act, 1 Geo. 1, st. 2, c. 5, s. 1, for remaining assembled one hour after proclamation made, need not charge the original riot to have been in terrorem populi. Rex v. James, 153 2. If an indictment on the riot act 1 Geo. 1, st. 2, c. 5, s. 1, for remaining assembled one hour after proclamation, in setting out the proclamation omit the words " of the reign of," which were contained in the proclamation read by the magistrate-this is a fatal variance. Rex v. Woolcock, 516 3. If the proclamation be read several times, the hour is to be computed from the first reading. Ibid. 4. If there be such an assembly that there would have been a riot if the parties had carried their purpose into effect, this is within the statute; and whether there was a cessation or not, is a question for the jury. Ibid. RIOTOUSLY DEMOLISHING. See L. C. J. TINDAL'S CHARGE, 265, n. An indictment on the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 35, s. 8, for feloniously beginning to demolish a house, cannot be supported unless the persons committing the outrage had an intention of destroying the house; and therefore, where considerable damage was done to a house by a mob, who did this with an intention of seizing a person who had taken refuge in the house, this was held to be not within the stat. Rex v. Price, 510 ROBBERY. See L. C. J. TINDAL'S CHARGE, p. 267, n. 1. A. and B. were walking together, B. carrying A.'s bundle, when C. and D. came up and assaulted A. B. threw down the bundle and ran to the assistance of A., when C. took it up and made off with it. C. and D. were indicted for robbery, A. being the prosecutor:-Held, that they could not be convicted of the robbery, but only of simple larceny, as the thing stolen was not in the personal custody of A. Rex v. Fallows. 508 2. Obtaining money from a woman by threatening to accuse her husband of an indecent assault, is not robbery. Rex v. Edwards. 518 3. A. was attacked by robbers, who, after using very great violence towards him, took from him a piece of paper, on which was written a memorandum respecting some money that a person owed him :-Held, robbery. Rex v. Bingley. SEISIN. 602 1. A person's being assessed to the land tax for certain lands, is not evidence of his seisin of these lands. Doe d. Stansbury v. Arkwright, 575 2. If a person fells timber in a wood, it is primá facic evidence that he is the owner of it; and therefore any thing that he says at that or any other time as to any one else being the owner of it is evidence. Ibid. SET OFF. See HORSE RACE. SHERIFF. See BAIL, 2. 1. If a sheriff defends an action for a false return as well as he can, he may recover his costs from the sureties of his bailiff who executed the writ; though he has a verdict against him, on the ground that evidence was not produced, which, in another and subsequent suit between other parties, involving the same question, was obtained. Farebrother v. Worsley, 102 2. Semble, that, if in such an action, after he has obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, he compromises the suit, with the assent of some of the sureties, by paying a less sum for damages than would be recoverable, and a less sum for costs than were incurred -he may recover his own costs against the surety who did not assent, if it appears that the compromise was, under the circumstances, reasonable. Ibid. 3. Semble, also, that in such a case the words "costs of any application to the Court touching or concerning any matter, wherein the bailiff should act or assume to act as bailiff," will comprise the costs of an application to the Court to set aside the judgment on which the execution was founded, the return to which gave rise to the action against the Sheriff. Ibid. 4. A sheriff had obtained judgment against A. in an action on a bail bond. On this a fi. fa. issued directed to the coroner. S., who was attorney for the sheriff and also for others, indorsed the name of a sheriff''s officer on the writ. The coroner's broker seized a barge which was bought by B., and the price paid to the officer; subsequently, the barge was claimed by others, and B. lost his purchase:-Held, that under these circumstances the officer was not the agent of the sheriff so as to make the sheriff liable in an action for money had and received at the suit of B., although it was proved to be the See FALSE Representation. 1. When a ship owner, knowing that a port is blockaded, enters into a contract with a merchant for the delivery of a cargo there, if he afterwards refuses to go, he is liable to an action for the breach of the contract; but, whether the damages are to be nominal or otherwise, must depend upon the opinion of the jury as to whether, if the vessel had gone to the place, she would have been able to get in. De Medeiros v. Hill, 182 2. The captain of a ship, who gives directions for repairs, is liable to the tradesman in the first instance, if it does not appear that any credit was given to the owners. Essery v. Cobb, 358 3. If a person, who is mortgagee as well as broker of a ship, gives diquestion for the jury will be, in an rections for repairs to be done, the action by the tradesman against him, whether he gave the directions only in his character of broker, or as a person having an interest in the vessel. Castle v. Duke, 359 4. Where a vessel, bound for the East Indies, is advertised to sail by a certain day, and does not, the shipowner will be entitled to recover half the passage money of a person who refused to go, after having engaged a passage, unless either time was of the essence of the contract, or the delay in sailing was unreasonable. Yates v. Duff, SHIRE-HALL. 369 1. By a private Act of Parliament, the shire-hall of G. was vested in the justices of the peace for the county, in trust to allow courts of justice to sit there, &c., and to permit and suffer it to be used for such other public purposes as a major part of the jus SPIRITS. See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 1. STABBING. See MANSLAUGHTER.-Murder.— WOUNDING. STABLE. See OUTHOUSE. STAGE COACH. See CARRIER.-NEGLIGENCE. If a person go to a coach-office, and direct that a place be booked for him by a particular coach, and that be done, and he leave his portmanteau, the coach proprietor will have a lien on the portmanteau for something, but not for the full amount of the coach fare; but, if the party merely leave the portmanteau while he goes to inquire if there be an earlier coach, and no place be actually booked, the coach proprietor has no lien at all. Higgins v. Bretherton, STAMP. See EVIDENCE, 1.-RELEASE. 2 1. A bond was conditioned for the payment, on a certain day, being a year from the date, of a certain sum, with interest thereon, at the rate of 51. per cent.:-Held, that a stamp covering the amount of the principal was sufficient. Dixon v. Robinson, 96 2. A bond conditioned to pay 1,000l. on a day five years from the date, and to pay interest, half yearly, in the mean time, only requires a stamp for the amount of the principal sum of 1,000l. Foreman v. Jeyes, 419 STAMPS, TRANSPOSING. It was the duty of the prisoner, who was a clerk in the Stamp Office, to cut off the corners of parchments which bore the blue paper stamps allowed for as spoilt by the commissioners of stamps, and to put the blue paper stamps and the small pieces of parchment so cut off, and which were glued to them, into the fire, without separating them. Instead of doing this, he separated a blue paper stamp from the small piece of parchment to which it had been glued, and glued it to a new skin of parchment, on which the words "This indenture" had been written. The Jury found, that he had no fraudulent intent when he cut the stamp from the skin of parchment, but that he had when he separated the blue paper stamp from the small piece of parchment; and that he then intended to apply the stamp to a parchment intended to be used as an indenture:-Held, that this was a capital offence. And it being uncertain whether the stamp so separated was impressed before or after the passing of the stat. 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, it was held, that the party might be properly convicted on a count stating the stamp to be the impression of a die made and used in pursuance of the statute made and provided for denoting a certain duty, being one of those under the management of the commissioners of stamps." Rex v. Smith, STEAM VESSEL. See NEGLIGENCE, 6. THEATRE. 107 1. The 2nd section of the stat. 10 Geo. 2, c. 28, inflicting a penalty of 501. on persons performing, or causing to be performed, plays, &c., without letters patent, &c., is not repealed by the stat. 5 Geo. 4, c. 83. Parsons qui tam v. Chapman, 33 2. Proof that a party was the acting manager of a theatre, and that he paid the salary of and dismissed one of the performers, is sufficient proof that he caused the performances; and if he caused the performances, it is not material whether he did so as the agent of others or not. Ibid. If a man employing an officer attends with the officer, who seizes in his presence the goods of a third person under an execution which he has sued out, he makes himself responsible for the officer's acts. And, semble, that in such a case, where he is present and interferes, he ought to point out to the officer what goods are to be taken, and what not; also, if in such a case an unjustifiable assault be committed by the officer, the party authorizing the seizure will not be answerable for it, unless it be shewn in some way to have been committed by his direction. Meredith v. Flax |
