Page images
PDF
EPUB

1817.

REX

v.

W. and R.
MEADE.

the officer had taken upon him to make an arrest where the sheriff had no authority to execute process at all. 3. There was no evidence that there was a non omittas clause in the writ. If there were not a non omittas clause, the arrest ought to have been made by the chief bailiff of the liberty, or his officers.

WOOD, Baron, was of opinion, that there was a failure in proof of authority on both these grounds; and the prisoners were acquitted accordingly.

Tindall and Starkie for the prosecution.

Gilby, for the prisoners.

See Rex v. Akenhead, ante, 469, and the note to that

case. See likewise Rez v. Prickett, 3 Campb, 68.

DURHAM.

DURHAM ASSIZES, 1817.

1817.

THE

REX v. ROBINSON.

Where pro

perty is stated

in one count to belong to certain persons,

naming them but in another out be

specifically,

to

and the prose cutor, by de

sons unknown,

fect of evi

dence, cannot

prove the

names of the

persons as de

HE prisoner was indicted upon the statute of 26 Geo. III. c. 19. for plundering a vessel which was wrecked. On the 29th of December, 1816, the brig Anne was stranded near Shields. The prisoner, with two other persons, went by night to the vessel, whilst she was lying upon the sands, and cut down part of her rigging and furniture. There were two counts in the indictment. In the first count the property of the ship was laid in persons who were therein named; and the second count laid the property to be in persons unknown. On the part of the prosecution, evidence was offered of the ownership of the to the second vessel as laid in the indictment; but the witness describes the could not recollect the Christian names of some belonging to property as of the owners. The counsel then relied on the persons unsecond count, which laid the property to be in persons unknown. There was a provision in the act of parliament, that a prisoner might be convicted, where the names of the owners could not be ascertained.

Williams, for the prisoner.-Evidence of owner

scribed in the first count, he

cannot recur

count, which

known.

1817.

ship might have been easily given. The present case cannot be within the meaning of the clause in the act of the 26th Geo. III. This vessel cannot ROBINSON. be said to be the property of persons unknown.

REX

v.

RICHARDS, Lord C. B.-I think the prisoner must be acquitted. The owners, it appears, are known; but the evidence is defective on this point. How can I say that the owners are unknown. I remember a case at Chester before Lord Kenyon, where the property was laid as belonging to a person unknown; but, upon the trial, it was clear that the owner was known, and might easily have been ascertained by the prosecutor. Lord Kenyon directed an acquittal.

Prisoner acquitted.

Losh and Grey for the prosecution.

Williams for the prisoner.

1817.

[ocr errors]

REX v. JOHN WILSON.

There

HE prisoner was indicted for uttering forged notes, knowing them to be forged. was nothing particular in the immediate act of uttering; and the question was, as to the prisoner's knowledge. An accomplice was the principal witness; and to confirm his evidence, the counsel for the prosecution produced the prisoner's examination before the Magistrate who committed him. It was not tendered as a confession, but as containing facts which appeared upon the prisoner's examination, confirmatory of the testimony of the accomplice. The magistrate being examined, stated, that he held out no hopes or inducement to the prisoner, employed no threats, but that he had examined him at a considerable extent, in the same manner as he was accustomed to examine a witness. The prisoner, however, was not sworn.

RICHARDS, Lord C. B.-I think I am not at liberty to suffer this examination to be read. No matter whether a prisoner be sworn or not. An examination of itself imposes an obligation to speak the truth. If a prisoner will confess, let him do so voluntarily. Ask him what he has to say? But it is irregular in a magistrate to examine a prisoner in the same manner as a wit

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

But

The examination of a prisoner ought to be without oath. Bull. N. P. 242. And the whole of the confession must be taken together, when it is offered in evidence. if only the material parts of the confession are taken down in writing, and they are afterwards read over in the presence of the prisoner, and by him admitted to be true, that admission will make them evidence. 4 Esp. 171. It has been determined by all the Judges that, although confessions, improperly obtained, are not admissible, yet that any facts which had been brought to light in consequence of such confessions may be properly received in evidence. Thus, where a prisoner was charged, as accessary after the fact, with having received property, knowing it to be stolen, proof was admitted of the property being found concealed in the prisoner's lodgings, although the knowledge of that fact had been gained from an inadmis

sible confession, 1 Leach, 300, Warwickshall's case. Some, indeed, have thought, that the circumstance of the fact being known in consequence of information received from the prisoner, ought not to be shewn at the trial. But a different practice appears to be established by later authorities; and, on a prosecution for receiving stolen goods, evidence has been admitted, that the prisoner described the place where the goods were concealed, and that afterwards they had been found there; but that part of the confession in which he acknowledged that he himself had concealed them must be rejected, as it was improperly drawn from him, 2 East. Pl. Cr. 658.

There is good reason for

this distinction: for what the prisoner has said, respecting the concealment of the property, is ascertained to be true by the fact of discovery; but the other part of the confession, in which he charges himself with having concealed

« PreviousContinue »