1832.

WORCESTER ASSIZES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE BOSANQUET.

July 23rd.

An indictment,

which charges

a forged check

to be "a warrant and order

for the payment of money, which said warrant and order is in the words and fi

gures follow

ing," is good.

A forged check

REX v. CROWTHER.

FORGERY. The indictment charged the prisoner with
a certain warrant and order for the pay-
having forged
ment of money, which said warrant and order is in the

words and figures following-that is to say:

"WORCESTER OLD BANK.

"Hanbury Hall, Nov. 28, 1828.

"Messrs. Berwick, Wall, Isaac, and Lechmere, pay to

on the W. Bank Mr. John Perkins, or bearer, twenty-five pounds ten shil

was presented

for payment at the S. Bank, where the supposed drawer never kept cash: -Held, that this was sufficient evidence of an

lings.

£25:10:0.

John Phillips."

with intent then and there to defraud Francis Rufford

and others. There were other counts, which charged, intent to defraud that the prisoner did "utter," and also "did offer, disthe partners of pose of, and put off," the forged instrument, knowing it to though there was be forged.

no probability
of their paying
the check, even

if it had been
genuine.

It appeared that this check, which purported to be a check on the Worcester Old Bank, was presented by the prisoner for payment at Messrs. Rufford's bank, at Stourbridge; and it was proved that they would not pay the amount, and that no person named John Phillips kept cash with them.

Godson and F. V. Lee objected that this case must fail upon two grounds:-First, because this indictment charged, in every count, that the prisoner either forged, uttered, or offered a "warrant and order;" which imported that he had committed an offence with respect to two instruments; and secondly, because it could not have been done

to defraud Messrs. Rufford, as they had no customer of the name of John Phillips; and there was, therefore, not the most remote chance of their paying the money.

Mr. Justice BOSANQUET.-I am of opinion that this indictment is sufficient. In each of the counts there is only one instrument set out, and it is called-" A warrant and order for the payment of money, in the words and figures following." I think it is both a warrant and an ordera warrant authorizing the banker to pay, and an order upon him to do so. With respect to the other point, I think that the prisoner going to Messrs. Rufford's, and presenting this paper for payment, is quite sufficient evidence of an intent to defraud them.

1832.

REX

บ. CROWTHER.

Verdict-Guilty.

Shutt, for the prosecution.

Godson and F. V. Lee, for the prisoner.

[Attornies-Robesons, and Pumfrey.]

By the statute 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 66, s. 3, 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 warrant or order for the payment of money, with intent to defraud any person whatsoever, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as a felon." By the statute 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 123, the capital punishment is repealed,

except as to wills and testamen-
tary papers, and certain powers of
attorney; and by s. 3 of that stat.
it is enacted-"That in all infor-
mations or indictments for forg-
ing, or in any manner uttering
any instrument or writing, it shall
not be necessary to set forth any
copy or fac-simile thereof, but it
shall be sufficient to describe the
same in such manner as would
sustain an indictment for stealing
the same; any law or custom to
the contrary notwithstanding."

1832.

July 24th.

REX v. JANE RICHARDS.

A girl, accused INDICTMENT for administering poison, called oxalic

of poisoning,

mistress, that if

was told by her acid (a), to Mary Duce, on the 23rd of April, 1832. It appeared that the prisoner, a girl of about 15 years of age, all about it that was in the service of the prosecutrix; and that, on the night

she did not tell

night, a con

sent for in the

her before a

stable would be of the 24th of April, 1832, the prosecutrix went into the morning to take prisoner's bedroom, just as she was going to bed, and told her that if she did not tell all about it that night, the constable would be sent for next morning to take her to which was held Stourbridge, meaning before the magistrates there; and the prisoner then made a statement.

magistrate; she then made a

statement,

to be not ad

missible in evi-
dence. Next
day, a constable
was sent for,
and as he was
taking her to
the magistrate,
she said some-
thing to him, he
having held out
no inducement

to her to do so;

Held, that this

was receivable,

as the former inducement ceased on

her being put into the hands of the constable.

Mr. Justice BOSANQUET.-I think that we must not hear that.

It further appeared, that next morning a constable was sent for, who took the prisoner into custody; and while they were on the way to the magistrates' meeting at Stourbridge, she, without any inducement having been held out by the constable, made a statement to him.

The prisoner's counsel objected to this statement being received, as the inducement held out by the prosecutrix must be taken to have continued.

Mr. Justice BOSANQUET.-I think that this statement is receivable. The inducement was, that if she confessed that night, the constable would not be sent for, and she would not be taken before the magistrates. Now, she must have known, when she made this statement, that the constable was then taking her to the magistrates. The inducement, therefore, was at an end.

(a) See sect. 11 of the stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, set forth, ante, Vol.

4, p. 372; and the case of Rex v. Harley, Id. 369.

JONES, Assignee of STUBBS, an Insolvent, Demandant, v.
BREARLY, Tenant.

WRIT of right. At the previous assizes, four knights
(who were in fact esquires returned as knights by the
sheriff) elected the grand assize; and at these assizes the
four knights appeared, and twelve of those whom they
had chosen appeared, and were sworn as the grand as-
size, together with the knights.

As soon as they were sworn

Campbell, for the defendant, placed 6s. 8d. on the table of the Court, contending, that, as he had tendered the demi-mark, the demandant must begin by proving the seisin of his ancestor.

Jervis, Talfourd, and Justice, contrà, relied on the case of Tooth v. Bagwell (a).

Campbell. If the demandant does not begin with proving his seisin, the greatest inconvenience will ensue. In

(a) Ante, Vol. 2, p. 271.

1832.

JONES

บ.

BREARLY.

this case a great deal of property is claimed by this writ of right, and it is held by my client under several different titles, and nothing is more probable than that when all these titles are gone through by us, the demandant may prove the seisin of his ancestor as to some very small part of the property.

Mr. Justice BOSANQUET.-I hold myself bound by the decision of the Court in Tooth v. Bagwell. In a case on the Northern Circuit, Mr. Baron Wood considered that there should be a previous finding of the seisin, but that is not so. The Court, in Tooth v. Bagwell, held, that the tenant should begin, though the seisin of his ancestor must be proved by the demandant at some time or other. Anciently, the tender of the demi-mark put the party on the proof of his seisin in some particular reign; but since the limitation of writs of right has been sixty years, it is held to put the party on the proof of his seisin within that time. However, the question here is, whether the demandant must prove the seisin of his ancestor in the first instance, or whether the tenant must begin. I think the tenant must begin.

The tenant began and went through his title. The demandant's leading counsel then addressed the Jury and went into his evidence; and the leading counsel for the tenant replied.

The Grand Assize found for the tenant.

Jervis, Talfourd, and Justice, for the demandant.

Campbell and R. V. Richards, for the tenant.

[Attornies-Chilcote, and White.]