« PreviousContinue »
1817. the officer had taken upon him to make an arrest
where the sheriff had no authority to execute proRex
cess at all. 3. There was no evidence that there W. and R. was a non omittas clause in the writ. If there MEADE.
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 Rex y. Prickett, 3 Campb, 68.
count to be
fect of evi.
THE prisoner was indicted upon the statute Where pro
of 26 Geo. III. c. 19. for plundering a perty is stated vessel which was wrecked. On the 29th of De- belong to cer
tain persons, cember, 1816, the brig Anne was stranded near naming them
specifically, Shields. The prisoner, with two other persons, but in went by night to the vessel, whilst she was lying long to
the sands, and cut down part of her rigging and the proseupon and furniture. There were two counts in the indict- cutor, by de ment. In the first count the property of the ship dence, cannot was laid in persons who were therein named; and names of the the second count laid the property to be in per- scribed in the sons unknown. On the part of the prosecution, first.count, he 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
property as of the owners. The counsel then relied on the persons un. second 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.
persons as de
Williams, for the prisoner.-Evidence of owner
1817. ship might have been easily given. The present
case cannot be within the meaning of the clause in RET
the act of the 26th Geo. III. This vessel cannot Robinson. be said to be the property of persons unknown.
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 night easily bave been ascertained by the prosecutor. Lord Kenyon directed an acquittal.
Losh and Grey for the prosecution.
Williams for the prisoner.
Rex v. JOHN Wilson.
threat or in
THE prisoner was indicted for uttering forged The exami
notes, knowing them to be forged. There prisoner bewas nothing particular in the immediate act of fore a magis. uttering; and the question was, as to the prisoner's exam
prisoner as a knowledge. An accomplice was the principal wit- witness, alness; and to confirm his evidence, the counsel holds out no for the prosecution produced the prisoner's ex- ducement, amination before the Magistrate who committed cannot be used 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
The examination of a pri- sible confession, 1 Leach, 300, soner ought to be without Warwickshall's case.
Some, oath. Bull. N. P. 242. And indeed, have thought, that the the whole of the confession circumstance of the fact being must be taken together, when known in consequence of in-, it is offered in evidence. But formation received from the if only the material parts of prisoner, ought not to be the confession are taken down shewn at the trial. But a difin writing, and they are after- ferent practice appears to be wards read over in the pre- established by later authori. sence of the prisoner, and by ties; and, on a prosecution for him admitted to be true, that receiving stolen goods, eviadmission will make them evi- dence has been admitted, that dence. 4 Esp. 171. It has the prisoner described the place been determined by all the where the goods were conJudges that, although con- cealed, and that afterwards fessions, improperly obtained, they had been found there; are not admissible, yet that but that part of the confession any facts which had been in which he acknowledged brought to light in conse- that he himself had concealed quence of such confessions them must be rejected, as it may be properly received in was improperly drawn from evidence. Thus, where a pri- him, 2 East. Pl. Cr. 658. soner was charged, as acces- There is good reason for sary after the fact, with hav- this distinction : for what the ing received property, know. prisoner has said, respecting it to be stolen, proof was ing the concealment of the admitted of the property being property, is ascertained to be found concealed in the prison- true by the fact of discovery; er's lodgiogs, although the but the other part of the conknowledge of that fact had fession, in which he charges been gained from an inadmis. himself with having concealed