On this page

• Text (3)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    COUKf ijl' QUEL >' s j-EKCH , 5 iT 0 RT > AT , JUJfE 3 . THE < JCEE 3 r . O ' COSSOS - ^ D OIHEBS . Their loSBSHiys haying intimated that they -wished tzrbesi His counsel £ _ r the defendants on the question of Tenue only , Mt . IEsie proceed to address the Court Ha had to -appear in za ^ on of tfee mis for arresting the judgment in this cass ; ' , confining liimse ^ entirely to the pointlhEn * Lordsaips bsd tngsested , namely , tba defect in Tenae that Epp-aied oa the fourth aad fifth eonnts , be should snbmit that tbe case on behalf of ihe defendants ought to succeed , a = d lie wonlS pray their lordships * attention particularly to the cfLace chsrzcd in lie fonrth coast , bkorc he submited the grounds npos

    ¦ which is reliefl for the jndgment of the Court bemsr m his fa-onr . Tne fourth ccsnt in efiscfc charged , that diTers-cersons , ca drrers days between the Isi of August and tie 1 st of Oncost , at diTers places , tnnialtaously -isssnbisa together sb 5 by violence impeded labour , and therery caused tezrorand alarm . That was the offence , if EEy , that was charged on die ism of thi 3 indictment , and he bussed tsar LaTdsbips trould beai in mind that { fee indictable offence charged Teas , that divers persons at drrers places tesnilttiDnsly assembled and by violence impeded labour , and then it Trent on to charge -what in a case of fslony -weald be a charge of being an accessory . Toe sllegstion "was , that the defendants at MMifha ^ tw . in iascasbire , did aid , abet , &i , the said ^ jersons to costinue and persist in ,

    lie taid unlawfnl asaemslias . It was , therefore , an mcLJctnmt -whereupon two steps -were essentially necessary to proYe tbe corpus ddicti alleged to be ebarged against the principal criminals , and to prove lhat tie defendants "Were accessories to that crime , "whatever thaVralzfcA be . As ^ he cOTBt "was framed , he iubnsittedthat the wsntof aiiwiD ? any plscs for the conuaishdd ef the prineapsJ efisstse was fstel to ihe cotmt , as Tn ^ fip of orgscfion in point cf substance , and also fatal on account of She xnlra of ple&dics . He would £ rsi address himself to thst wnich ires ia the nature of an © igecHon in point of snhsr&sce . In tie "want ef aBegnsg any places pretested it appearing npon the record ttst-any indictable efface at all ^ as commited by the principal offenders , of course Ihe charge assinst tha accessaries trodd faH to the . around : ' unless the

    yiincipsls -were guilty of an irdictarie offsosce , tfco ac- i cessorifS "were sccassoiy to tb » t which ^ ras not icdict- ' able , £ Ed , therefore ! . "would not fee themsal-vts iadiel- j able . The &'gnmeai on this point lay in a small con- ; pass , —xsmeiy , thai ii "was vtrlecily csfsistent -Kith ' all that "was alleged , ¥ h ** . the prinrfpd * fi = nders nrisht I -not Issre beec indictsbls for the ftds slreced ; antl ho took it on thB gronnd that those acts xnieht have cc- ' curred ia p 2 iits of the jisfee r-n * of the dominions of ' her Hsjssty , "Bhleh -was cozaastfiat -with the aJlegag £ tion , has , that the acts charged might have ' taken place 'bsyond ths limits of her realm , and if- they y ^ i taien ptree there and "would not be jndicta'de , this point "wenld be established . ! Qie coEcestic-as made by his learned Prif-ada appeared

    to Jam to so a long "stay to establish it . The Learcfd Attorney- General , "who had opened this case , said the charge against tbepncapal offenders- » rcs chn flyjiatesded to rprK : d otpt drfers conntses- Tks aescription went en , "fljat a lare « portion of the realm "Bas in aa nnsstUed state , ac ^ that tfce acts coisplaineu of "were going on in that pcrfcoB tf the realm , and his fritu ^ sonjittrd that the fitscripSon did apply , and "was irtanfied to apply ¦ widoct liEKiadon , to divers counties , tc erery connty in the jealm 3 ¦ without limitation . In the coarse tf the aJxmaent fear Lordships had pressed bis Learned Siienas to ssy ¦ srtsy the prindpa ! oSaice ^ i ^ nld bo confined to the conptiea cf England ? Wonld it not be equally indiiia ^ Je If committed in Scotlasti Ireland ? His frienL ssM that if the tcmnlhicos asfii . hIit-5 hsd

    taken place in Seotirac or Iralaad , f ? 12 any part of the Tealnis « f feer 3 Iaj «> stT . altfconss not Trithin the jnrisoicficn of Sns Cecrt , that 'sronld rcB = * : nte aa istilctsble r&cce for sidhig ar-d abetting in ibi * coautrj ; and he raiihr , tbertfare , stats in spprottbing tiis branch ef the argms ^ t , his fnena * a T > riDcip ' . e -would ^> to say tbet if die cffep ce ocenrred in any pert cf the Queen ' s -dominions , in Scotland or Ireland , t auy of the eelodes , a contest for labonr between t % ~ blscts and the "arbltesia Jrmaica , an indictable effetee "wonld be constituted . and his Learned Friend had so stated it . If the fieBeristicD cf the priraipal rfence " « rts w-preded

    to apply ± 0 any part of tee doaiaiipns of the -Qeeer , Trhethex ktSMh thiahfjiiigifcereor the other ht-rrit jbere Jje ^ TFonld y «? v -srh&t there tras to £ x the acts of the divtrs persens vho assp&bled at the < 5 iYFi 3 plr-rrs—¦ wliai there wz 3 to rfio" 5 r that those places jrvst l » Tnthin fhe dcminioiis cf the QnEes ? Tfctrs ^ ts z description grven eccspt thst the EssembBfs occc Ttd : n tlirtrs places ; eug £ ni * 4 y he might contead \ n \ h & *> - £ - denee titit in crimnisl pieadm ^ s it must app * *? ¦ epos the face of the inoiKiseDt that all tie « ssi-BtisJ fz . cz * 1 iat eonsStated ijnili irere tttra alleged , sshadl-tn suggested "Wfeea tkis mle vis niored . It -s ? as perfecuy poaable that there miaul hate beer ic Fraure a di *

    posuoa ££ aiEsi H-gHsh artissss hevt-ati the rower ef the Qn 6 en—it was perftctiy posafels that tninnltnous ussemblie * taJ ^ tit have ts ^ tn place , and that the Eshjects -of the Qnttn emplsyed in joitign mannfactt > rj < -s inight hare b = cs impeded ia thi-ir iabcar , zsd that terror iad been occasioned to tbe » nl 3-c ; -3 of tLe Qneen . That trss tLe fu 3 amormt 11 * h ~ c »* eriplicn of the cfirsce ; aad yet « ^ sa p- ^ ssiVle to folir-w U up , assienm ? the plsee oat « . f lie £ 35 gd « m . eiiiicr is Ftrv or K .-w York , feat "sronJd be ictelh ^ irle . 2 u criminal prnceediurs there cngfet to beeerUairy , and te rati ^ -. tes that on this creend this indictiaeEt , " which "was sf a prrfeeily

    anomalous description , and " sras laid Ttry wide fei the purpose of string . great adrart ^ gs to the proseca tora if they departed from precedtnt and broc ^ fct forirard aa Biinsnal charge is sn EEa . ^ al form , for the pcrpasES im had meutlosed , —if then- > -as a cfcTeet in an « £ Een * ial allegatJcn . he asked thtir I /» rc"i ps to give the dtien £ an \ s the benefit tf Ibe known mJes of the Jaw frr-fl construe the indiclnrsEt strrciiy ; a » t thtn , it did not ^ ppeiT that any tffer-ce had tcitn place wiShin the jmisuiclion of the Comt Bat , psssips ? trora thi 3 point to tht- otjactions fonniltd e s the kno-sra rnl « s of ctStpStw-I pleadinr . and for tfeis branch of the = * - £ Bn : ent , Qiat the principsl offenders ver * ehirgtd -aijj 375 indictable effrnee , he submitted thai this ccnr . t vr ^ s bad fortraiitof ailtgirg a tedeb U > the priscipal rff .-tee . that it -ess bad en tfcst ground , and was E- 't eased bj the statute of the 7 ih George IT ^ c G 4 , Etc 20 .

    Mr . Jastice COiEKiEGE wocld sik -wh- &ct It ' s ^ a net jest en what tht Lsamed Coxmsfci h&d said in U « iegL-airg , that if it had been a dsa of felony thchaa ^ e amounted to that -of an accessory before tjie fact , and tLst tilths beiur no felony committed th ? charge of accessory ftli to the zrcnnd ? Supposing it ytsjb a ca ^ # of BEhstantive misaemieaonr ?

    35 s . KKXE oBserred . that £ 0 "wss eow comisg to the sosocd point of his aT ^ sment . Sr Justice COLHB . 1 DGE wouM suppose the etis cf 3 rcirin 2 a Preccsmaij to isarder a Frscstms-i in Prsres , -srciild cot the jurtisg in this cgueUj fct aa infiiet = ^ lt > cffccce at common law ?

    3 &x . Eele should j-tate that mating rae Frenchman toc ^ ritzx , ! inc-i Le rFrtii ch soljtct "was col an iriictablf- tSrrep so £ j- 2 : he i £ ew . Of course tLere snir- / 1 be isixs such ss woald have the v&ct of inT ^ Vrti iLt two CvHElii s in 2 . was , which mieiit "vary Hie cas « f ; bi-t the iEciSnz to eefiand , according to hi ^ , limited tu >» - Icdge of * he 1 s" : fs u ; iiis chantry , -would not be U , < ilziaKe . He -wx-iied to draw the attention of the C ^ urt to tins post . If this punt bad betas an infiictaseirt . i . - -r felooy as th £ prindpil cfilaee , and the dsfeadtnts -were eB *<^ to haTc been acctssorits , the indictn : er 7 t wes fJraiced in such ¦ % "Ray as to make that proof il » c * s . 3 & : 7 srtueb wwiIg haTt heen nsetssary had the charge b& = s that « 5 f ftluiy . The tuthonties "which cad own cit « - * 2 > y ite Solid-ter-Gcuexal . la nriegemesnoers all -were principals , ei ttsy m % t . t be token some 2 s principals , some 2 " sccessarits . Mr . Justice CoX-EEjdge "K-oold ask if there might not fct a ^ Mrd case of siSaisiirive laisdtaieaiionT ?

    2 tlx . Eiii-S ¦ Bwilii sciuit that , aDO he iras soing to point s .: * ei . ! = os to tJie c = ? --s of " Tbe-King t . fiiugias , " sna ** Thi- S n ? T . Since , * ' bcta ^ ejs'w hicb . snd Uie cast ZKK » -i > efoiv J 6 ^ CooTi th-re "srts & subrt 3 at ! al djstiEction . 33 se Tirtitii : case rtqeirr-i procf cf 3 princi p ^ uns-iltmeaiLonr , 33 a tfce defca-i . i : « t # 3 Seg * d tbat no principal misdeiEeaiH-nj faad been ? brvra . The charge " w ; J a chaise ih _ i -iJsre "sere tcsialuicaa assaaiblies , sad that the cs-fejxi icts aids ^ i znu a ' jettec trie perrons who took part ia V -5 tnnnjltn ' jas as 65 Lb 3 ! es . to eoonts-Iiaiice tl » E 2 id ^«** mbliet—t- ' A that ijssj isdttd them to assemble t--ier * 5 ^ r . or v- ± 'xar £ , szy o ^ eczju misf 5 ej neaTHinr . but tfc- A-hor ^ e alWri the tzUtsns- of a poatiTe priiio } = al : . xiea : esii ur . and . tLat the de f endants aidt-d £ fcs _ - tV . ii this ,-, fiitica to eciiliuae and asEEt in ths s-id . ej etini-s . Sis fdeiids hid souaht to ar < . ; d tLis bj it-f ^_ : the gi ^ -und , tLitilj ^ y cirhs be charged tis ^ jix . ^ p -1 rsieden : stssta in tiidea'couring to wr ^ cure the & arinsaon c-f > hs ¦; ffciice . Mr Jr ;«*^ rs COI-FJR > na = ? * Trr = T » t ^ . i f Ki . T = ^»» -. c _ i

    Couustl acsdtttd tbat wn 4 k ia-iicbblc ; but ^ oc ' . d it be as oS ^ cc ta car a :.: uat Gat L-f ths rt ^ hs ^ hitij "srould If a n . iskiE-. jst- ^' . ir if 1 JoHac- ' .. cd jc Ec ^ IsdJ ? 31 r . Eule iaiaaneti u -a ; r . l » L 3 It . JcsUcs Golebicgs—li it v £ s :- bidta a persca ODt of iie realaj it wo « i ; - ; sot i e eb cfeacr ? 3 Br . Eble—To comnilr rnnr , - er oat of the r £ al » n wes statutory , lot t . r any otLss cf ^ cs tb e ;« dce wesid S- e a 3112 ^ 5 ^^ H .. -srs i » ot aware cf ju ^ la ^ tfeat-coBld iasieit amiEdemf-rr -n to tndea ^ ur % o stir np tee fnTarcta * I s . 1 ordgn-coimt ; - : o Atsttoy the richts < r fj ) roj « r ^ . Tfc ^ Eaght fc « s \ - 2 try 4-ie aere WiaiioprotectioiL Ee hid pr ^ a- - - ^ n tln ir Lor - » hips ' £ tteE ? iCTtJief .. Taoft ? i uicic-ii nt , \ L div ^ - persons -were gaii ^ - « aa iaaict-LJe 3- ^ i-aeant . c- 1 - i ¦ a at the Gtfcs-iaits aided atd absftu- » bem . He sid anSmitted that il wss sot aninai . r ^ - Z * & and » e

    wcuid bos' EUCE 3 H , tnat eTen aauit'iii , ii to be in-- ! ie - able , jierertheleES , for wsnt of Tesne , tfce oljection * wus fatal , and ; that it "was not cured by tit rtatnte . 7 o conrtirnte the -cBssiee hera ehrrged , it -c ~ 'b perfectly dear that there isnirtia-ve been an unlawful rssem ^ Esg aad an impeding ^> f labour by violence . Tbtxe facts ansrtbe eetablidieS , it "was quite essential t ^ the indictment , btcuse tte charge "ffas , that the defscdants iad iided and abetted , the persons to « ontitme arid assist ; aBd ^ therefoSU the cfience "was on es * ecriii fact , and for ihe want of a place being stated in the atitgar lion en tie facs ef Qie indictoeat , the count wa > ; ad according to ^ ihe roles ol pleadiEg . He -vroald u-uMe H » Cotm isrtth fkiew aniheritifcs , to show that feu ; and J > tece-were material fact ? , and most ba stated on ths indictment . ; Comyn's Digest , " Isfiictment , "' tec 2-, tunred ^ tia i jou toast sot only is tbe £ ist inslsECS

    Untitled Article

    i ' . t » l wiia intent to puohaa it , showing afterwartis that it was published , was an offencs per se , and then said , If tho defendant is charged with writing and with publishing a libel , end he wrote it in Leicestershire and published it in Middlesex , an offence is committed in either placs , and therefore it may be well tried in either county / ' \ This case did not appear to him to further the argument of his Learned Friend . He would refer to the case of " The King v . Scott , " in 2 Eist Pleas of the Crown , page 780 , where it -was held that indictment against a receiver of stolen goods need not allege time and place . It was sufficient to allege the fact of stealing the goods and their receipt ; but this was & charge under the statute of the 5 h . of Anne

    0 . 31 , s . ? . which made a substantial misdemeanour to receive stwlen goods , knowing them to be stolen . Section 5 enacted that a party receiving stolen goods , knowing them to be stolen , might be proceeded against as an accessory after tho fact ; but here the receiving " knowingly * was the gist of the ofionce ; and , although it was alleged that a stealing must have taken place , yet for the purpose of this offenco no distinct act of stealing need be established . If the property was received by the defendant , without inquiry and for small value , that would be good evidence to goto tbe jury that the defendant had received the goods knowing them to be stolen , without any evidence whatever being given of tha goods being stolen goods .

    Mr . Justice Colebidge—You must stats them to bo goods belonging to somebody . Mr . Esle would submit , that after this case of "The King v . Stott , " it would be sufficient to tarn tb the statute of Anne , and say the defendant received certain stolen goods kno ^ - ' ng them to be stolen . Mr . Justice Coleeidge . —Tbe averment that the goods had been stolen must be proved , as it ia a material fact It is no motter on thiB principle whether the fact be proved in the uidinary "way , by evidence or by admission . Mr . Eble . —In point of pleading , you need not allege the stealing , but that the goods were " stolea goods . " ; Lord Desman—You must prove that they were stolen goods .

    Mr . Erle—That they answerd to tbe descriptionso to speak—of " stolen goods . " The Learned Counsel then cted a case from Fiizsjibbon , page 123 . vbeio the indictment bein ? for keeping away a witness from the trial of a misdi / rneanast . it was moved in arrest of judgment , that it ought to have stated that ths defendant knew that there was a criminal charge , and that the trial was ; coming on . The answer was , " No ; the charge is sufficiently stated in this , —that she , knowing the indictment waa coming on to be tried , endeavoured to keep away the witness : " the endeavouring to keep away is the gist of the offence—the stato of inmri constitutes the offence , combined with the actual endt-avourJr . c .

    L ^ rd Desman—The " state of mind , * ' and endeavouring , woulvi of theni 8 elve 8 be , in certain cas ^ a , no offence . Tana , suppose tha case of there having been no real offence , or of the trial coming vb before a court of no juris-diction—the keeping away a witness nvRbt be no offence . So tbat then it is not quite clear that the existence of the legal grounds of trial was not a mat « ial fact . So with the stealing , or an indictment for receiving . And dots it not setm that theBe are parallel casts wHb the present ? Mr . JuaVice Coleiudge—Could there be the gU fence of receiving , if the goods had not been stoitn ? Mi . EitLE—No ; certainly it is material , as part of the dtfccriptiop . Mr . Justice Coleridge—Yes it Is alleged without time or place .

    Mr . Esle—Bui tho offence—the subject of indictment—arose subsequently to the stealing ; the charge ia the receiving . Tne stealing of the goods received guiltily is matter ouly of description , just as in an indictment Jone might instance ) , for exporting machinery , the making of the machinery is not alleged , not provable , not travesable , yet it must ha . ve been made to be exported . Mr- Justice Coleridge—But it is no offence to make machinery . Tho charge ia solely tiso txp < rting . Mr . Ehle . —And , my L'jrd , in tho indictment for receiving , for the purposes of that indictment , it is nut necessary to consider tbe goods having been stolen as any more important Mr . Justice Coleridge . —There is no distinct allegation of it independently of the charge—" sciens . "

    Mr . Erle . —That implies it ; and in an Indictment , necesaary implication amounts to express averment—•* recipiens . scie 7 is , " sufficiently avers it . Tbe statute on that offence assumes the stealing to have existed , and then , on this prior state of facts , creates a new misdemeanour . If you n ceive tningB to which that description applies , bnowii . g it to apply , you are guilty of the misdemeanour created : the criaiiual pleader may charge the efface , by averring that you took goods within that description knowing it Mr . Jastice COLERIDGE . —Would argue that " stolen goods'" is as much a merely descriptive phrase as " brown cloth ?"

    Mr . Erle . —Let me put the case of " French silk ;" that I think & fair analogy , importing French silks «¦ knowing them to be French . '' The Learned Counsel then cited the case of ' M'Daniel , " in 1 st Fo . 'ter , 121 . That was an indictment for aiding iud abetting ; tbe principal offence being in one county and the aiding and abetting in another , ard the indictment was in that shape . There had been a conspiracy to incito somebody to rob one of the parties , for which the robber was to be apprehended by the others who would siiare the reward for his apprehension among them . The robbery was in Kent ; the counst-llinR , &a ., in Westminster . The case is the more remarkable because it

    clearly exemplified that persons aiding and abetting need have , no communication with the principal offender . And in fact it was there held tbat no real roi / bt-Ty had been perpetrated , the taking having been collusive and voluatary on the part of the person who allowed himself to be robbed , for the purposes of tbe conspiracy . Mr- Justice Patteson—Is there any case in which a man has beta indicted as an " accessory before tho fact , " the fact in question having never been committed ?

    Mr . Erle ( observing that be did not thick the state of the facts here involved that point ) said he had never met with such a case , which strnck him as in its terms contradictory and impossible . He should , however , argue that in this cisu the indictment—could not be gutiaineJ as sufficiently charging and Hiding and abetting a future offence . The Learned Counsel preceeded to argue that the statutes of feofoils would not help the total omission of venue . They cured the imperfect statement—not the entire omission , of a material allegation . As to time , a less stringent rulo was recoi » - alztd by the statutes ( for on obvious reason ) than as to plnce . If a place at all were named as the scene of the acts alleged , they might have taken place in France , or any place not within this realm . Then , was the fault cored by the venuo in the margin ? it waa said thst this might be taken as the imperfect statement of a venue .

    Mr . Justice Coleridge—You assume that the omission of the venua to one material allegation is an Ofnission aa to the whole ? Because , there is a venue » s to the latter part of the indictment Mr . Ekle- —I am not sure my argument would go to that length . Mr . Justice Coleridge ^—The indictment shows the offeDee to have been committed within the jurisdiction . Mr . Erle—Not an offence . Mr . Justice Coleridge—At all events the acts aileeed to have bsen the offence ; they are alleged to bavo been committed withia the jurisdiction of the Court .

    I-.: r . Erle—But my objection is that there is not sileyed to hsvs been any offence , that the acts are not aliened adequately as formiue an offence . Will the marginal venne aid the the defect ? " Lancashire to wit—the jurors on their oaths present , io . " He would cob tend that tho word in the margin applied only to the woids immediately follo . viust . Viz—" the jurors , " not to the effsnee subsequently alluded to ; and it was as though it ran ; " the juro - Lancn Mre present , * ' &c . The statutes "of feofaila plit . 1 not criminal proctt-dinc ? . The margin cured defects in actions but not » n ir .. ! i <_ tjnentf . Three authorities cited by the Aitornby-Gi rtral to the contrary would not be found adcqtLi'e to countervail the weight of authority in support of --hat proposition . The firBt one was in ' * Knilnorth , 33 , " x ^ -hsre the marginal venue was ** Oxford City , " and

    tbe indictment alleged an offence in Oxford . Tbe Court said tbat they would intend *• Oxford" to mean Oxford county in the body of tbe indictment ; and having intima t ed thatttfe indictment was bad , they say " that if i . oiiii :: ^ hail byen said on the marein of ' city , ' it might h « e btrn intended as r general word , and not have buen aidable . " This , it would be observed , was an extra jc . si diclum ; the purport of the case was that the ind : ;; njent was bad for the imperfect venue in the bony , not tbat it wss good for the v « -nue in the margin , the rspor <« r mert ' y aUdir ^ thai had it not bsen for the mistake in tbe body , t ' u . " margin might have cured the en : r ; and ia another of the three cases cited , where the Cwurt heii ? th ^ afiditi'w h ° .-i . thsra wasmeiuly an ixtrajadicial diuaih that the Venue ia the margin related to the ofil- ' -ce not to the a < ldit ; -ja .

    B ! r Justice Patteson saki , there was a case in 3 Cro . jac . 167 , ( Leach ' s case . ) Mr . ERLE ^ The argument was , tbat tbe omission of the county to the addition \? as fatal and extra-judicial . The Court said the margin feftrrod to the offence , and not to the addition . AH the Court rtquired to say was , that the marjjin

    but hifl answer wes , that it vras extra-judicial . It waa menSy an omission of " aforesaid , " and therefore could not x ^^ t to the margin . He was not aware of any other anttiority cited by his Learned Friends as immediately helping them . In the 2 nd Lord Raymond , SS 8 , " The Qtreen v . Rhodes , " which was an indictment for subornation of perjury ; the information set out that" C . W . Rhodes , late of the county of Surrey , " &c It 8 taS : 4 that Rhodes had persuaded a man to svr&' ir to a falsehood , and it slated that the man was indicted at St . Clement Ds&tt , in the connty aforesaid , which "pould appear as if St . Clement Danes was in He county of Surrey . The case w . " « tried at Westminster , a :. d mi objection was made that i'he Judge had no right

    Untitled Article

    to t ; y tE 9 cuss . at Westminster , beuauao itie cause of action was lail in Surrey . Lord C . J . Holt said there was a difference between actions and indictments . If this had been an aotioa , and tha plaintiff had dtctated thus , and " Middlesex" had been in tbe margin , it inust have referred to that county ; and the reason is because " Middlesex" in the margin , stands thereto denote the county in . which the action is laid , and therefore , though a conaty ba mentioned in the declaration for a particular purpose as for an addition of one

    Of tho parties for the purpose before the veuue , yet the comitalu prcediclo eaoujd not relate to that , but to tbe county in the margin ,: which was put there for that purpose . But here there was no " Middlesex" in tbe margin . The county in tke margin states the place where the cause of action ia alleged to have been , but in an indictment the county in the margin is only put jo denote where the indictment was found . In the same volume ef Lord Raymond , 1304 , the exception was , that " Southampton" w ?^ in the margin . Lord DenmaN eaid that had been overruled .

    Mr . EatE said th < a was a distinction recognised between indictments and actions . Mr . Ju , dU < M Coleridge said , in an indictment , if there was a county in the margin and county aforesaid in the body , it waa clear that would refer to the margin . Mr- Erle said , clearly so . The next case was that pf " Tbe King v . Burridge , " 3 P . Williams 4 S 6 . It was cot laid that the fact of ailing and assisting was done by force , therefore the aiding and assisting might have been done in another county , and the Cvurt could not take notice that jlcheater was in the county of Somerset , In tke 1 st' Sounders , 368 , in a note it was said that it was usual in practice to insert the name of

    tho county in tbo captioa instead of the county aforesaid , Vint the vord ' ¦ ' aforesaid" was sufficient . The name r ? the place , without the word " aforesaid , " was not tv . i'jjient ; but in civil oases it was otherwise ; for it was held tiifficu nt to name the place only in the declaration , because the place is always considered to refer to tbe county in tho margin . He trusted that the authority to which he iiad rdverled would satisfy their Lordships that tbe three case . * namfid by his friend tho Attor ; iey-Go )! t ? ral wereioxtra-juiiicial dicta . Ia " Hale ' s Pleas of the Crown , ltia , ' it was said that the caption was no part of tho indictment ; but the style , or preamble , or return mu . le from an inferior t& a superior . If the casa ol " the King v . Minter Hart" was tenable , the margin wonld rot o . uro a defect in the indictment .

    ¦ Mr . JuBtice Pattkson observed that it was there said to be taken before verdict , and was the same thing as if taken upon demurrer . Mr . ERLE said that-unless there wa 8 a statutable provision , any objection that ; would be good upon special or general demurrer would be good in arrest of judgment . LordDENMAN said that in Hart ' s case there were several indictments , and he was transported upon one ' of them ; therefore the history of the others was very immaterial , but he beiveved Mr . Bodkin was in tboso cases . Mr . Bodkin observed , thntup * n ths success of the objections Hart was set at liberty , but was convicted upon another indictment .

    Mr . Justice Patteson said the judges directed an acquittal , and treated the objection the same as if it had been brought be fore them on a demurrer . If the objection was demurrabin the statuto did not cure it , because' tU" statute only cured after judgment by default , as , after verdict , strictly speaking , the jurlge had no power to do tLis ; it could only fe done by allowing the party to withdraw his plea and demur . Mr . BoDK in snid , that in Hart ' s case it did not appear that the Court had jurisdiction . : Mr . Erle said the Cmtt had applied the statute expressly to it . It was cK-ar that the Learned Judges d £ alt with tbe case as thur Lordships fan' ? done in holding an objection good ic arrest of judgment when it vraa presented to them at the trial , aD < i th * Judges mind was clear upon the point . Tbe prisoner was allowed the benefit of it at tho time , although it was not the moment when , according to law , he was entitled to it .

    T&o opinion # f the Learned Judges in tbat case vras decidedly in bis favour that tho margin would not help thp prosecution . They could not apply the parish to the county in the margin without reference to it by tha word " aforesaid ; " and if that could not be done , the Court had not jurisdiction . The balance of authorities , he contended , was strongly in his favour . The margin referred to the jurors who presented . i » , and not to the charge . Tn < cure given by the statute of the 7 > h Geo . 1 * V . did not apply to the present case . He submitted that the statute of tho 6- ! i of Geo . IV ., enacting that the Jury ir ^ ght be taken from the body of the county and not from the hundred , dirt not advance hisuieiiils ' argument ; it was prior to th' 7 th of Ggu . IV . Jn rtspect to the allegation 0 ! placa the want of perfect or proper venue would not be fatal provided it appeared on the face of the indictment that the Court had jurisdiction .

    Mr . Justice Coleridge remarked , that the Sohcilor-Ganeral had said the Court had jurisdiction so lung as the grand j . a-y found the bill . . Mr Erle said , that was one of the points . With respect to the marRin , it was a condition v ? e «« JOTst for tho application of this statute , that it ebould appear the Court had jurisdiction over the offence , and tho Solicitor General contentful that thus meant but the nature of the offunce to which the commission applied under which the judass were sitting . Mr . Justice COLEKIDGE—Supposing the grand jury of the county had found the bill ?

    Sir . Erle eubmitUd that did uot appear ou the face of the indictment , the grand jury were not put of the Court ; the words were , " where the Court should appear to have had jurisdiction over the cff « nc 9 . ' His friend imported into the indictment the finding of the ( grand jury , but the indictment 111 ust show an offence coming within the jurisdiction of the judges , under their commifisioif . Tfan corumvaakvia related to offVnces committed within a certain placr , and of a certain character . In Lancashire it n . u . st be f > r offences arising within the county cf Lancaster . The jurisdiction of the , judges over an offence was compounded of two qualities , the nature of the offecce end where it took place . The particular commission under which the judge sat was for county A , and he ha vine the commission in his breast wag to say , " does this effance arise within the local limits over wi . ich n > y jurisdiction extends ? " That was tho way he answered his learned

    friend . The general commission of ojer and terminer was not nlone sufficient to show that the commission had jurisdiction . The Coaimission was confined to a given placa . and it must appear in th » indictment that tha offenco toofc placa with'n the limits of that place . it must appear on the face of the indictment that tho Court had jurisdiction . An imperfect allegation of place was sufficient if enough vere aUpgtd to give the judge cognizance of tiie offetnee . Tha < finding of the Grand Jury did not in the smallest dtgree establish the locality of tho offence . They might be niiBtakcu in tho county or parish where It occurred . Their Lordships had put the cane of the jurisdiction of tb&kCourfc . But it had unlimited jurisdiction . An indictmtnt might be preferred in tn&t Court with a venue in the , murgin , " Eugland to wit" He would not , howbvcjr , press that part of the argument on their LordBhips . os he was not t-xperiencert in it .

    Mr . Justics Patteson—An information might be filed in thin Court laying the venue anywhere ; but an indictni' nt could not lie in this Court without laying the venue in Middlesex . Mr . Erle would not press this point . He only ur ^ ed this against the argument of the Solicitor-General , that the finding of tho Grand Jury showed that the offence was within their limits . Eoough ought to be alleged on the face of the indictment to show that the offence was within the jurisdiction . The fifth count was alleged to be bad unless the venue in the margin would cure : the defect . Tbe only point for maintaining tbia count was , that tho venue in the margin could be imported into the body of tho indictment .. He would not trouble their Lordships further . He would submit tbat the fifth count was clearly bad ; and he would also submit that the fourth count could not be supported .

    Mr . DundaS said , bis Learned Friend had taken nearly all the ground from under him , and he , therefore , " would not trouble their Lordships at any great length . He would refer too passage in Hawkins which had not been cited , taking up th ; argument of his Learned Friend that the finding of the grand jury did not i'stabiish the locaiity . In the second book of Hawkins , c . 25 , s . 34 , " of indictment , within what ptece . offences must arise" it van laid down that if it did not appear that tho offence arosy ¦ within the limits of the county from which the jury wis returned , they had no jurisdiction over it Ho submitted to their Lordships on both counts , but ciearly on the fifth count , that there waa nothing in the body of the indictment laying tbe offenc , within tbo jurisdiction of

    tbo grand jury , who bad found a true bill . There was co reference whatsoever to the venue in the margin , neither was there any mode whereby they could import tbat which was in the margin into the count , unless thpy said that a marginal venuo was sufficient without more . In a , note to " Collins v . G ildamki , " 1 B'lfctvotftt ' a Reports , 205 , it was held by the whole Court / , that an indictment for a nuisance , without an allegation of the county or place , waa bad , and the party waa discharged . In " Hammond ' s Caso , " Cro . Eliz , 761 , which was entyr to reverse a judgment given' upon an indictment ,: tbe indictment was held to be- ill , because no county was named in tbe body of the indictment , although a county was named in the margin ® f the record . In 1

    " The King v . Yarrington , ' 2 Keeble ' s Reports , tbe indictment was quashed for not having a veuue' in the body of it , although there was one in the margin . In " Shelly v . Wright , " 2 Comyn ' s Keporto , p . 662 , it was held that a connty in the margin would supply the want of it in the declaration ; hut it was stated , in an Indictment " the omission of the county In tie body Is not helped by naming the ceunty in the margin . " Since the statute of 7 George IV . the ease of Minter Hart had occurred , and he hod

    found another case , aincd that , referred to in the 3 rd volume of Bums' Justice by Doyle and Williams , p . 383 wherefin an indictment for bigamy the venue was bud in Middlesex ; and it was stateii that the fint marriage took place in the connty of ¦ — , the second in the county , of— — . ; and at the conclusion it stated " that tke juroru further say tbat the said E . waa apprehended on the — day of , " at leaving a blank for each place . After conviction the judges held unanimously that the indicttcient was bad , for it did not oppear that a Middlesex Grand Jury had any jurisdiction .

    Untitled Article

    Mr . Justice Patteson . —What is the name of the Cft'tt ? Mr . nuNDAS—" The King v . Frazar , " tried in 1833 . It is not ytt reported Mr . Justice i Coleridge . —But there \ raa good reason for that aecisioo . without supporting your position . The first marriage might be in one county , the second in another , and the apprehension in another , ami you could notjteU to which to refer the venue in the margin . . Mr . DusdAs—Where no county was named- at all thfere was nothing to go to bat the venue in the margin , and be cited the casa as an authority for his position It certainly wpuld eeem that where no veime whatever waa laid in the body of tbe count , that the marginal

    venue would not auffi'ie . Ho would refer the conrt to tho casa of the " King v . Gonnop , ' * in 4 Ad&lphus ? nd Ellis , p . 942 , " ^ bich shewed that tbe Court looked to the venue in the body of the count as the substantial venue . It would ropm that the marginal note was never called injto life except by reference to it It was treated as a thing which might be there , and' if reference were made to it tfeen it Bfearted into life ; but until then i » was of no import . He contended , therefore , that there was a necessity for a venue to be stated in tho count of an iriWictmsnfc , and this objection applied to both counts of ' the present indictment , and there being no verue in either the whole offence had not been truly stated en the record . *

    Mr . BaineS appeared on behalf of three of the defendants , an ' d should certainly after the arguments of bis lnarnedj friends bivo abstained from further troubling their ! Lordships , were not this a question of great importance to his clients . He contended as to the 5 th count ibat this was not a case of an improper or imperfect venuo , but a case of no venue at all ; and therefore it was not within the statute of 7 th and 8 th George IV ., anil could not be cured by it . That statute applied 6 n ! y to * cases where there was a want cf a proper , or an imperfect- venue , nnd not to cases where there was a tot " al omission . It was by no means a sound argument that , ] as was urged Vy the Solicitor-General , if his cor . 8 truistion of tbe statutes were do * adopted they would hav « no real meaning ct all . Their

    Lordships were aware that in . many cases it was found difficult , if not impossible , to say what * tbe o ' jectof tbe Legislature had been , or whether tbe tcrma they had employed wereUuniclent to carry it out . It wiis , howevor , by no means ncceasary to construe tho statutes in the way prepoW'i by the Solicitor-Gsneral , in order to avoid mufcmg ihem entirely a dead letter . The cases in the books shWeJ that the sta-tutes wero designed fo . and held to , euro defective or imperfect statements of venue , which would have beea fatal in pleading on arrest ; of judgment but for the operation of the statute . Tbas in 2 d Hawkins . 86 . " it is unnecessary to aver a conclusion of law with time and place ; but if it be so , ami it be done improperly , this indictment is ba ; 1 . As if D be struck Jin county A , and die in county B . and the indictment alkie his murder to have bisen in

    the former , it tyili be vicious , fer the act was completed in the latter . " j That which was not of tiie t s ^ dcc of tho offence and essential to be proved , need not be stated wiib time and place , but if it were , it must be Stated correct ' y . ' So ia 2 Hale , p . 80 , the doctrine was laid down as itj ha > l been recognised in tho court in " Rex v . Wright , ' 1 , Adolphus and Etlia . Tbe want of " proper" vei . uo was ' cured by the statutes . Since the passing of ( the 6 i ! i George IV ., leqniring as to criminal what the Act of Anne bad as to civil proceedings , that the jury ebould come from the botly of the county , tLo ! special venue need not be laid where

    the ( acts were of a transitory nature , bat tbe necessity was not displaced of stating tbe venue fur fucts of a local nature , as in burglary and night poaching . A legitimate application of the statutes would be where an indictment merely averred that the prisoner broke and entered a pertain hcuso in the county of , fce-, without giving fnrtber description ( which would have been bad llut for the statute ; - ); the reason being that the court would havo jurisdiction t « icq-iitfe ioto offences all thr ^ ujh the county . Thesi arguments and authorities be hoped would be suSctpnt to . disprove thu Solicitor-Generals construction of the statues .

    Mr . Justice Pattkson—The Solicitor-Gen ? tal remarked upon the words of the act . He admitted tbat if the words Lad been " improper venue , " it might bave been more difficult to apply them to the case of utter absence of vtnuk But he said , tbe words " want of proper venue" implied » s well the abstnee as the imperfection of a ( venue , arguing that tLo want of ar , y venue was " tbojwaot of a proper venuo *" Mr . BAiNES-j-Then why have inserted the word 41 proper ? " It is on the change of lan ^ uaae which the Legislature adopted when they came to epeak of venue th . at I rely . Th ^ y evide n tl y use langu . ' ts . i more qualified and restricted , as to curing defects in venue than in time , tbsir Lordships cocld uot , the Learned Gentleman proceeded to artjue , look at the " caption" 1 S . Turid # rs , 250 bj Faulkner ' s case . By the indictment itself it must appear tbat the G < utt had jurisdiction .

    Mr . Justice CoX . ER . iDGE . — You assume that the venue in the margin antl the caption are the same . Mr . BAtNES .-j-Not exactly , my L <> id . I contend tfcat your Lordships cannot look at the Caption ; whereas , tbe Solicitor-General caUed it in aid He said , * ' it appeared from the caption and tbe margin . " Now it must appear from the int ' tetment alor . e- ; and how could it apdair from the indictment alrne , unless it appeared from the allegations in tbe body of tke indictment ? The jmargin was nothing for that gni pose , ff theru were references in the body to the mtu-siral

    venue , as " to the county aforesaid , " tho two niijat be taken then certainly together , o ' . herwiac the marginal venue was usele&a . The allegations of venue were iinpurtant as fuels that went to make op the offence . It was from these uVtrroents that tbe Court judged as to its jurisdict . ou . jSo much the Learned Cmi * vsel said , as to the fifch coupt . Then aa to the fourth count . In Stock ' s case , he contended that if it were good law , it would only be so from some citcdn 5 atai . ee a distinguish : ing tbe ci « e of receiving stolen goods from all others , and making thoj authority $ ui generis ; for certainly in all other authotitits it was laid down that

    averments of material and travereable facts inu&t be with time and place , jln " Eas > fa Plaas of the Crown , " the report was meagre , and no persons were given for the authority . He tlipugnt the caae might be explained in thlaway . When ^ Iho venue was averred in an indictment far rew . vini ? stolen goods , it referred to the stealing ; but yet [ larceny was ol a continning nature , and was going on iu every county through which the goods Wbvo carriJd till thty reached the hands of the receiver . So that ] the venue would be alleged of every county through w . liioh they passed . L- ^ rd Denmas - —I could easily put cases in which that couUi not be so ; as , if the gooeis were sent by an inuoceat messenger , who could not be said to have been committing or continuing a larceDy . Sir . Baines —Bat tho z- rding by that innocent agent would bb p . continuance of the larceny by tbe principal , the ineaseivcr being only tho means employed by the

    principal , who would be indicted for the larceny in any county where ihe < 5 « uda csrtie . Mr . Justice Patteson—You can hardly maintain that proposition ^ Suppose tho thief delivered them to a person in some county without any instructions at alL , and that the receiver took them into another county and gave them to a third party who knew all tbe circumstances , and took them to conceal them ; would there be any continuing lavceny iu tha county were tbe last receiver took them ? It could not be alleged-in an ind ' ctHient againsl ; this ptraon that he received the goods from the Ithief , but thEt he Received them , " knowing them to have been Rtoien . " I Mr . Baines . —I think my proposition borne out by the authorities . Lnrd DENMAN . -pA steals geodu in Middlesex and then doi tvtrs them to B without any instructions B tabes thvm into Surrey an < l gives them to C for concealment : C ttikirig them witli a knowledge of the

    circumstance , vpould be indicted fur the guilty receiving in Surrey , but not A for tho larceny ? Mr . BaI . nks was still of opinion . that his view was sustained by the cWs . However , he crmnnued , the c : ise of Stock , if ifc could not be explained on that ground , was not , he contended , good law ; as it was impossible , then to . maintain , it against all tbe authorities winch were opposed to it Mr . Justice Coleridge—Mr . Starkie , in his bouk , frames Ins preceitents according to the authority of the case , and st-ittea it to be tho constant practise . Lord Denman iatimated ha had alao understood the practice to be so . J Mr JufcticeCoLF . iutiGE—Supposing all you say true , the venue must , neyerthtitess , ba proved , if material ? Mr . Baines—No doubt the point applies to pleading and evidence . J Mr . Justice Coleiudge—But you seem to apply your explanar . tm to tue one , and not to the other .

    Mr . Baines continued to contend , that the wvirht of authority vraa u > j the effeet that every material fact must be stated its « fc : > rniu ? in a particular villa in tfa ^ coinu . y ( for tlis hajciseu a case in the 4 th of " Maul * and Sulwyn , " nnd the book of Mr . Starkie on cr . roin < . ! pleading ) . There c ' ouId be no question of the law on this point , —that aifj ma £ fcri . » l f icia must b r 3 averred with certainty of tim « an ; " regularly the Grand Jury can inquire into nothini ? bat what of the

    arises within the bo ^ y county . " What was there , be argued , totake this case out of the common-law rule ? It was not till 6 Geo . J IV . that British subjects could be tried for murder out ] of the realm . By a statute of Hen . VIII . the power was first given to try offences committed out of this country . Tbe direct interposition of the Legislature was ] then necessary to give the Grand Juries jurisdiction over offences not committed within tha realm . There waa no statutable provision in . ths present case ; therefor * the indictment should have excluded the supposition of the acts having occurred out of this country . He'apprehended the Grand Jury had no possible business to meddle with this indictment , and it did not appear thai : the Grand Jury had jurisdiction . ' He submitted that there was sufficient objection to tho indictment for the want of venuo , and that it was cob cured by tbe statute , j

    Mr . Sergeant Murphy wonld not address himself , in the first place , to the case of " The King v . Stock . ' Ia looking over the foundation of indictments ogaiast receivers by st&tate , lit was laid down in all the books

    Untitled Article

    that the only caae in which a party could be indicted as a receiver was that of the person who harboured the thief in stealing , or tbe murderer in casa of murder He would ask their Lord-ships whether they con ? d co ^ ceive in a case at common law , where they had apersjn indicted for harbouring a thief is felony . iheir Lord Rhipa would consider the indictment sufficient which did not state either tini « or place when-and Wbere the felony was committed by A B ; but the person was in dieted for harbouring A B ? "Would that be sufficient aa a statement in the indictment ? He apprehended it would be utterly insufficient so to state it ; but with regard to ad

    alltbe rules of pleing , that indictment of receiver at common law should state time and placa in order to give certainty , and that the person put upon hU trial should have notice of the whexeand the when as to tta offence with which he stood charged . With " regard to the case of " The King v . Stock , " it was a decision £ which no great -weight should be attache

    of a new offence , and do away with the necessity « f se £ ting out npon tbe record the principal offence , aa it wonld have beea where the principal was iadicted ; bx& the substantive offence must be stated , tbat he received the goods knowing them to have been stolen . " < £ h * King v . Stock" stood as a single case , and gave tn analogy to another case . It was material that anv issuable fact should be stated . His Learned Friend had cited the case of " The King v . Holland , " to show that every material allegation was stated , and that tv valuable from the observations of Lord Ksnyon , in th 8 5 th T . R-, 620 ; that was an indictment against rebsh - and all the material facts were stated to have ocean J at Carlisle , although they were tried in S'irrty ; an a tbat was a peculiar case , where there was a d ^ wna .

    tion of the statement of venue . The indictment * & out tbe peculiar circumstances , and recited in the can . tion the Act of Parliament which gave the authority If they were to take the venue in the margin , by an * . ' locy it was plain the only venue there stated was Sangr and , therefore , if ever there waa a case of di 3 ponssti 0 IJ of the statement of venae , that -was the case , becsaje tfc » recital of the Act of Parliament gave notice of t ^ circumstances under which the authority was given but Lord K-jnyou said , notwithstanding that , it < &aj necessary to state every essential issuable fact with its proper venae . That was a recognition that , notwftjj standing the venue in the margin , that venuo conlj not dispense with tho ptope ? allegatiot > a i » the body ol the indictment . Was this an issuable fact ? He

    apprehended it clearly was so . If they looked at the na ture of the plea of not guilty they would see it was a cuouilative traverse of everything necessary \ o be proved to found the legal guilt of the party Here tbere were two incidents which tbo travel disputed—one a tnnmltnoaaly assembling ; one aiding and abetting . If there were no tumultuous assezn . blinga there would ba no aiding and abetting ; and there might be tumultuous assemblings and ne aiding and abetting , and the defendants would be not guilty It was not a mere inducement , it was the very gist of the case . In a case of nrarder tbe indictment ou

    n « t stated with the proptr venue . If they chose not to consider this with tae single intention tbat all parties were principals its misdemeanants , tbe venue oucht to ! iav « been stated . The wordisg cf tbia ioducement was consistent with the parties being oat of the realm ; there wa i no single Word which pointed to the necessity tbat the patties should be otherwise than » . Qt ot the realm . Ths matter was Dot to be left in doubt or uncertainty , the party ought to know upon Wkint ; at the imUctment the effence with which he was charged . There was nothing to show that an offence bad been committed within the jurisdiction of the Court . If this had taken place in France ; or out of the jurisdiction of the Court , it wa 3 not an offence indictable in this country * Wjs there any thing to show this state of f . icts exiscad in this country ?

    Mr . Jnstice Williams asked if it was admitted , that if it distinctly appeared to have been done in this country it was au offence ? ( We did not catdt the answer . ) Mr . St-rjeant Mcisphy said the Solicitor-General bad said there was no venue to-the fifth count , unless the act of Parliament interposed snd ended it . Now it waa piain that tbe caption in an indictment was : io part of the indictment itsolf . If it thouid appear by tha indictment or information that the Court had jurisdic tion , the statute wonld cure tha defect - The fifth count independent of being bad on other grounds , as not showing there ever had been a continuance of any act done , was bad . as not station whero sr . y of those circumstances took place . Could it be-therefore suid , tbat the act of Parliament cured it ? This -ma no improper

    or imperfect venue : was no venue the want of a proper venue ! It could not be said that the want of venae toi the same as an imperfect venu ^ , nor could it bs eaid that it was an imperfect vanue . He , therefore , sub « mi : ted to the Court , that upon the fifth eount , whatever question there might be oa the fourth , tii « c > cduld be no an 3 wer to this objection , which was fa . fctf , and the statute could not by possibility cure it . Taere was a < iiff * renca between the total omission of time and an absence of a proper statement of place . They must consider tbat unless jurisdiction was shewn , tha place could not be inferred . Tho Court might have jurisdiction , thoueh there was an onossion of the time ; but it could not have jurisdiction without some place befng shown . Be had to contpnd tbat wero tbe indictment was found had no reference to place ; but that the judge mutt have tbat fact brought to bis knowledge .

    Mr . Bodkin , on the same side , had not believed that the law tfficsrs of the Crown would hava endeavoured to sustain a count where no venue at all was state . l . The course of argument taken iiytbo Attorney-Goneral had been repudiated by tbe Soiiciior-General ; tha former had argued tbat the jurisdiction vas referable to the character of tbe offence , while tbe latter had civen up the count except it was cured by tbo statute . The word 8 ' of the statute were peculiar , and might drive the Court , a « in many other instances , to convict lha Legislatnre of an absurdity . It was not enon ? h that there was no venue , but something must appear to fhow tbat it was within the jurisdiction of the Conrt . If two counties were mentioned , the word " aforesaid "

    raipbt have reference to either . There was an absence of v ^ nue in the fourth count . It was also so loosely worded , tbaJt it was difficult to undewfcand what the precise offence charged wag . It was difficult to say from it whether these parsons were aiding and abetting ' at a diatauce from where the offence was committed , or that tut ?? were personally present taking part iu the act S ; otfa was an accessorial charge ; this was a substantial charge , aGd there was a material distinction between the two Ciwes . In a case erisi .-g oat of " The Qaeen v . Caspar and otheis , " the gold dust robbery , the indictment was held bad-for want of particularity , in alleging that the prisoners incited another to cooiinit an offence , without , on the face of the indictment , naming tbe person or averrim * tbat he waa unknown .

    Mr . Atherton then proceeded to address the Conrt on the part of some of the other defendants , nnd went < - * ver a similar ground of argument , citing the case of " Mellor against Walker , " 3 William ' s Saucers , 5 b ., and the notes thereto , to show the two counts of the indictment bad urder the rules of criminal pleading , for not setting out a venue in the body of feae indictment , where the Venue was local and material , so tbat it could not be known where ths venire foetus was to be awarded . The Court intimated that they would consider of their jaJgtnent .

    Untitled Article

    g THE NORTHERN STAR . j ' '

    Untitled Article

    sVtte \ hv t-. me £ E < i piac-., osii tiius *• U tnnsi be r » - } n ^ iten to es < 3 ; Material fact -, and . therefoit , gaod 10 M . apud B . inmlltim fecit tt aim gladio fdonice percussit , ¦ withont saying ad iwtc el ibidem percussit , is bad . " S ? the reference ought to be to a time or place certain ; as if it says , quod percussU apud A in comilatii prcedido , where two counties are mentioned before , though one waa in the addition only , nnleBS they alleged a place for a Imaterial fact , the indictment was bad . " In Hawkins , bosk 2 , c . 25 , s . 83 , it was said it seemed agreed by alii books that no indietnient wss good ¦ without txpreraly shewing some place -wherein the offence -was committed , -which must

    appear to have been -within the jurisdiction ef the Court in which ths indictment ttos t ? ken , and must be so alleged as te be free from all repugnance an > 3 inconsistency . This matter also waa mentioned in 5 T . R , 620 , the case of " The King t . Holland , " who was indicted for malversations in office during the time he was one of the Council at Madras . Mr . Justice Bailer th-rt said , * that every natemi fact which iB issuible and triable zaust belaid with time arid place ; it must be laid with a venue , for the ^ ake of trial ; and wherever a venue is necessary , time must also ba mentioned . " This case only set up the general proposition for which he wss contending .

    Mr . Jnstice CoLBHUXJB asked if it must be laid in some place in England , to wit , at London ? Mr . Erle said , according to the niles of pleading , it ought to have been laid in that way , and in many other cafes it was recommended that the-indictment should state tha matter suggested by Mr . Jnstice Coleridge , to wit , at London : bnt all he was arguing was , that they must assign & place for the esiential fact . Mr . Justice Colesjsgs observed , 'that the Learned Counsel mnst go back then to the principle of the old cases , -where the place would hive been the reai place , or the place in the county where the grand jury sat . Mr . Eele would allude to the case of the rebels who were tried in Surrey . Tfce indictment Baid , "To wit , at CrcyJoa . " They were fonnd guilty of rebellion at Carlisle , aithengh the indictment was " to wit , at Croydon . "

    Mr . Jnstice Coxesjdge referred to a case in 4 Carr . and Payne , 394 , -where Mr . Justice Bayley had directed to words of a venue , to be inserted at St . Maryleb ^ De . '' Mr . EaLE said , tiey might nima s place within the jurisdiction , as in the Court of Admiralty and the Central Criminal Court . 3 Ir . Jnstice Colebidge—That must be according to the fact within the jurisdiction . Mr . Erix said , tbe oljection was , that they did not allege any place for the existesca o £ tins offence . It ¦ was as if they hatl not said finj tking at all about the place . He submitted tfcat Tfce point alluded to by Mr . Justice Coleridge of a : leging " thereal place " and then adding " to wit" stood on no good foundation , and ,

    therefor ? , it was now no longer necessary . The indictment was net vitiated by it . He would advert to the case of " The Sing r . Hayncs , " in 4 Mauls atd Selwyn , Sl-L , -which waa an indicta'eikt against a miller for ree *_ iving com to \> e ground , and returning bad or mixed meal ; and he b : on ? ht tht case btfore their Lordships hrcause it was there held , upon error , to reverse a judgment after Eaynes had been convicted , that the indictni = i . t was ill , if it did uot enow a certain place where the defeadast received tbe Parley to grind , the indietnuiit alleging ¦" th ^ j ^ rora , &c , pnrsent that F . Haynea , la e of the parish of Brasted , in the county of Kent , rattier , t-n the 5 ih of March , in the oith Gso . HI ., and long before , and continually thence until Ihe day of taking the inquisition , was possessed : of and did ktep ,

    and is still possessed and doth keep , a certain common and public mill , called a water mill , situate at the parish aferesaid , for the pnrposa of grinding wheat and otbti conj therein ; bn . the indictment cud not allege tbat be : oceUf' the corn in the county of Kent to be ground ; and Laid Eileuborijngh said , " Then , aa to the want of a veiiae where either of the pircds of bariey was rrctiTe ! . I liav © been endeavouring to see ii it might not he dispensed with , bnt rpoa locking to the indictniLEt , 1 find that the defendant received the barley for the parpose ef being ground at the -mill , and that the purpose is a is £ > constantly referred to in all the subsequent Oi ^ aUons ; for they all rdata to the barley so received by the defendant bs aforessiil . Therefore it

    stems to tae that the indictment is defective , for want of a vc ; . u . e to a fact which is material , and may not be C » s ] iens * d with . " He wonld pnt that ss an authority , ¦ "siitre the otjf ction was taken after verdict , and in a ciu-a -wberf it slnusi appeared to be implied that tbe mi -cf -w ^ u'id r . c ^ ive the corn at the miiL But it waa p-j ^ jifcls tliii Hi j cos iui ^ ht have received tbe corn at anoiiicr piacv , and for -sTaui of alleging where it was r > -Jscd tl > e iEuietme-t was held bad . In the c-ssa qaaitd it was not averring a material fact . But the present © f&-Qee , as set out in the fonrth count , was al' -. gcd wiuiont : n > y allegation of place . Upun that b : _ ud general prinsipie the indictnjciji wonld be bad , f .. r a material fict was alleged without any place . Ti-. oWjclion hsd been attempted to be cured in va

    * ' Skicnrr v- Hvit , " in Sau : > ders , and other authorities , inl 01 wt ; ch \ rtre case ? after verdict , and all were defective for want of allfgujg a p ! sce . In two late esses a similar Uifcct bad been held to b .- cured on demurrer , under tee stafaie 4 and 5 Arose , c . 16 . This argument cf Lia Itarted frigid , the Solicitor-Gi-neral appeared to him it » vwg . 'y to confirm tbe oljt-cuon . Before the itamtes of f eofsils this obj . ction wou ) d have been good ia civii sad crimraal pJeadl nfr * , but those sta-tntts applied only to < -.-. iJp * tc <* usgs . The statutes relating to curing defect s tar-verdict weJecoafined to civil pleadings , and d . d act Ttr ) n : e to indic ^ iBents . Tbe law as to incictments rtm ^ i- ed tfce same as it was before these statutes came iz . Xo f-f 5-ct . Mr Justjee Pattesos Eaid , in construing the late statute of ame- onifect , tbt 7 th and g : h of George IV , tLtj mTist be 4 , ni « ea \* y tb- aua 3 > - > gy of construction put s . pan the otht-r statctefi of f *» -jfails nr > A amendments .

    MtEBiE contmtied . —Anotberar ^ um snt much pressed oa their Lordships * atVetzon , the calling the principal i . ff-jice an " nalawfal : ^! -tinWy . " was not a material f ^ . ct hut mere rnatit-r *¦{ juductmett . TLe cases of " Tb& King B * am . «* Palur * and " Tbe Kinjr against Stott" bid been quotrd , 5 ut be iubmitttd t&st these

    . ., c 70 , advisedly eDdevourtd to seduce persons serving in bis Majesty ' s forces by sea and latd from their eaty ted a «' ---gianee , aiid by this statute ail p . rsous conTicivd of this conduct Wire to be a ^ judsed euiitv- of felorjy , a d suffer denth as felons witbc-i beatSt cf clenry . It -was ui / t-d in that case t * :. ij the gist of the statute was { -. the word *• sednrt ? , '" aixJ thnt tiitrefore tio ia « ms ought io beset fvrUi . The az ^ -R-tr was , that the " endtavonr to es-Gjxa ' ' -was but a conclusion of fsct . and that the fact ¦ s ^ aa fc ' ry expressed by the mere force of the word *¦ tzc sroursd , " < fcs ., without fipecifyjnj ; the means em * pV ^ yea . This -was aa indictable mlsdvineanonr , creatti v ac" < f Parliament . The charce cf " aiding and abe-mrg - v-2 s a chi-ge the technical meaning of whith ¦ wss faiuffa to U-c c .-iiuinfil law , and Waa understood t «_ Lii ;^ -liy as : si-. i accessory before or if . r tbe fact . Tfce csts <» f ' Tlu Kit- r . Hisgins , " in 2 E -sfe Renorts ,

    pare 4 , was not an » ff = nee crtat « i b » act of Parliament , ard in th-t case i : -was very much discassed wh-ther the ' solicitir . g" a t >« recn to commit an effrtee , wiih ^ ut sho-sring that the jffi . ee was couunittV ' , w . s icdjetab 3 e cr i-t *; i& 5 it was there held that tr . uiiiclt a ¦ rerraat to steal bis master ' s goods is a mii < % Diean « jur , tboupb i : fcio : chaiytd 5 n ttfi indictaient : J ; the f -rv& £ . z at Ih iLa .- yes , nor tbat say otter ac . -was con = txcevrs tb » sohcitini ; aid lacitia' :. and sucu ¦ C" < .: ¦ is -Ldicta-jii . " B = t i : co&Id cot H :-said that tlis rrgun ? - ? at Wia 2 ; >! ic 3 bic to the present case . There -c-at-nu aliecrtion of s iscstbig tvil-d'rpossd persons to collf ct in uaUwfu ! nstffx . xXSk-9 . Tl-e fcaith c mil only alitgtd that the ilcf-a / Jui ^ " - % ¦ * d ua'l attitted , " and it v . as rtrfce ^ j possibl- ? ! o ' iit . t ^ d -stf -Erichcnt auy con ? - amnicsdoa bttween ti .-- principal ofirnder and the accesory . 1 = ti ? r casr cf & buigisry Lang committe .. in the ^ 00 ^ 1- ^ 56 of a poriy wbj tas ? U } c j-eac * offiotr coming , a&i ^ Lo jet , f .-tm bautd to the landlord of ihe hoaBf , s ^ t i ! t 3 ! 7 i > Di that th * oSercs slionJd be compU-. ted , nivd ? ho di-v « tt-a t ^ ssua ^ nof the rlBcer ,

    ils . % party waald be an aiaer and abettfr' in the loi- ^ r y . witiu-iK therp b : : rr 3 rj- a nit at cutioH belT-eta : i . » partiti . Jice-yxaisir tc : ^< i dticri-Toi ; of the facts , maEy of these defendanta migbt hzvp b » d jjo earjhly t-3 irauni (? iticn Witk aay cf the priacipai defendants . I-.-.- , n . would it tot be pu'tlng a most strange con-Krcidf , n on thi 3 ino ^ ciment to ity that the defendants vitc- charged with " sciiafurg" to commit aa effence , ¦ srhrn the defendants mig ht : atcrely have " aided and abetted ?™ Mr . Jostics Pattesos—There are olber words besides " £ i < iii ? 3 and abetting" in the c-- > nnt , Mr . Ede ; tLere aw " assisticg , CDUjfcrtir ? , Enppodting , and encsnragiBc . " Support shows support in doin "" S something that is act caiiy being done .

    Mr . Erle believed there were other T ? crds . In the uncwtiDding of lawyers this whs a charge of L ^ ws accessory before the feet . If they supposad & rebellit ^ &nd tereans were to rend down arms to the rebels , he infcjpitjfti jfcst -that wonld be aidiEg and abetting comforiisg , stsistisg . snpportiBg , and « rco-oraging the rebels , sad yet it might be an act done without » single word of eommnDication between the parties to bring it within the cste of " The King f . Eiggini .- He confideEtiy reKed that there * wajs nothing in the count from which the defendants could nn « erstand that they were c-argea with having " solicited" any person to commit m tSEEce . In the case of » The King t . Buidett ' repmud in 4 BarEewiU aod Alderson , 458 , the point ¦ niccb < i-sruEsed by the Co- ^ rt was whether the defendaiiv worn . ! fee guilty of en indictable effence for -writic-» iibtr , - - oh intent to pnbiish it in the county where U was -Rriitn , if afterwaret it were published in another county ; aad there Eolrcsd , J ., teld that iR&iae a

    rioni tays ; and it ¦""'" "as conttnoed that this fault was ly a . akgy eurtd by ih * ttatutes of amendmfcEts and f ' . ofiiK , aDu Iii 3 lr-an . « . d Fritad the Soiicitw-Central h ^ d coa ' i ^ ntied btfor « tbeir LordsMps that tbia olj c . ion vr ^ s cur-. d after VcJdict by the 16 th and 17 th of C-i--it 8 II ., c . 8 , where , after curing many defects , it ¦ x- * n . ; ciT .-cl in tlje Srit st-ciion , " That no judgmenS ebs » ll b ? -rrtstcd lor thai there is 110 riaht veune , so as tLe causis -VTcre tried by 3 jury of the pioper county * jt p ! ac- trbere the action is laid ;* and his ' L _ £ rr- ^ G Fr ^ nii tsu cited , in . support t-f that view . a vaxie » - ? 1 f a'Pthoritif * . Ee Ijb ' cited the case of

    the < is = it 2 dant Fuiiercontrary to tue 37-th George III c ^ cu ¦ were perfectly ( Hyt-iuirDibbabje hpm the prtseat . , Toe in' -iciiaenctharged the procuricg aud " encaursgiaz" ijihers to nnlawfnliy a > wr » V ; ti > g but no art tf Parliament had made this an iff ^ nco . In "The King ag-hist FnlUr" the snbaticce cf tie charge was thai ; t"h ^» rte ^ lf-- » fifLTlt : "Pnti ^ T pnn * rflnJ tn fj ^ o f ? l 7 > 'K fl ^ nytra TTT

    Untitled Article

    We have the highest authority to state , that if any of tbe Che ! <¦• or Kilmainham peurioners connect ihetn ^ elvee with tho repeal movement , directly or indirectly , tbtir names will instantly be struck off vhe list . —Belfast Chronicle .

    Wilful Murder . —On Friday , May the 19 ib , a lad named Isaac Keitlt band , a ^ td teu yea . rs , sonoi William Kcttieband , of Wysall , labourer , was missing . O . i the Tuesday his body was found in a horsepond , on the farm of Mr . Henry ffabb , siiuate near to a barn and a stabJp , at which the deceased and his father usually worke i . An inqaest waa held on the body the same ev . j .-sing before Mr . C . Sw&pn , coromr , and no evidenco to th-t contvary being adduced , a verdict of " Accidentally dro-vaed" was returned . On the same ereniug aud du ? itM the next day , the village gossips , in talking ihe affair over , btj ^ au to vhiuk it . possibl >'> that toul pky lai ^ ht have beeu nseti , as the father of the doe ascd was kaowa 10 be u violent and pas ior . ate min , and u was noto ?

    nous that he had always most : him-fully aad bmaliy maltreated tho boy . Mr . l rowne . of Wy-n- ? woJci , surgeon , was sent for to ex&auaethe bcay , and heat o . ' ic © discovered that the nee ! : was d iskc v . <; a , and gave it as his ihg&S d-. cided opinion that it was brokf n before the body reached tha water . The pond iu which deceased was found is about 10 A yards by 4 , and \ h or iwo ysri-s deep in some p * ir : s ; it is , excepe at one corner , turroandid by a t ' ca ? finee , about lour f ^ et hjgh , and i 3 so &i ' . aato that ih ; boj could not possibly have broken his neck in falling ia accidentally , Ttieae circumstances , connected with the anxi .-ty tho father exhibited to bave tbe corpse interred before any surgical examination took place , excited such suspicions that the deceased had been unfairly | ' done to death , " that a second inquest was deemed indispensable . Accordingly a notice was sent to the coroner , and Kettleband waa taken into

    custod y . Mr . Swann consequently commenced a most ri ^ id inquiry oa Tflur « da . y , the 256 h , which waa at the close of the day adjourned until Monday last , the 29 th . Mr . Hebb , in whose employ the deceased and his father were , baa three farms—one at each of the villages of Wygall , Kejworth , and Stantpn—and there is no residence on the farm at Wysall . Tiie farm buildings are situate about a mile from the village , and stand the width of a very large field from the road ; they consist of a bara and stables at right angles of each other , and the pond spoken of is not more than twenty-five or thirty yards distant . On Thursday a Jury sat at the Plough Inu , Wysall , before whoin Mr . Swann commenced his inquiry , and a verdict was returned of " Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown . " The prisoner was then discharged out of custody . —Nottingham Journal .

• Citation
  • Northern Star (1837-1852), June 10, 1843, page 6, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/ns/issues/vm2-ncseproduct805/page/6/