Page images




Carter said that he certainly felt the force of his Lord ship’s observations, and he was ready to fall into any suggestion that he might make as to the course that should be taken.

CROMPTON, J., inquired of the jury what view they took of the case.

The jury said they were of opinion that it was quite unnecessary to hear any more evidence, and they at once returned a verdict of

Not guilty (a). (a) Vide a similar ruling of KEATING, J., in Hamblin v. Shellon, post, p. 133.

some months

Coram Bramwell, B. .

June Session. The prisoner was indicted for stealing two post letters Possession

by a letter containing a bank note for 5001., and also a valuable se

carrier of a curity, being a Crystal Palace dividend warrant, the pro

bank note perty of the Postmaster-General.

after it has

been sent by The prisoner pleaded not guilty.

post and lost:

- Held, not Clark (with whom was Metcalfe) for the prosecution. sufficient evi.

dence of The prisoner was undefended.

felonious stealIt appeared from the opening statement of counsel, and ing by him,

although not the evidence adduced on the part of the prosecution, that accounted for

otherwise than the prisoner had for five years before his apprehension by his mere been employed as a sorter and letter-carrier at the General

he had found it. Post Office, and that in the former capacity, namely, as sorter, he had been employed on the morning of the 17th of January, 1861, on the arrival of the mail bags, in sorting the letters for delivery in the East Central District. On the previous evening, the 16th of January, 1861, it was shown that Mr. Haigh, a sharebroker at Huddersfield, enclosed a Bank of England note for 5001. (the number and date of which were kept, and now proved by his clerk),

[ocr errors]

on that




and the warrant specified in the indictment, in a letter
addressed to Messrs. Moore and Carr, Royal Exchange
Buildings, London, whose offices were in the Eastern Dis-
trict delivery, and that letter was duly posted at Hudders-
field on the 16th, and ought to have arrived in London on
the morning of the 17th of January, 1861. It was, how-
ever, proved that Messrs. Moore and Carr never received
the letter and its enclosure, and though they at once com-
municated that fact to Mr. Haigh, and opened a corre-
spondence with the post office authorities, no trace what-
ever was effected either of the letter, the dividend warrant
or the bank note. The prisoner still continued as sorter
at the General Post Office until the 10th of the present
month of June, when he was brought to the General Post
Office on another charge relating to the loss of certain five
pound notes, which had been abstracted from letters while
in transit through the post office. On being interrogated
as to one of the five pound notes which still remained un-
accounted for, the prisoner was asked if he had any
other notes at home, on which he replied he had no five
pound notes, but that he had one for 5001., and that it
would be found cut in halves in a cash-box on the
drawers in his bed-room, at his residence in Dorchester
Street, New North Road. An officer was immediately
sent there, and the prisoner's wife gave up the cash-box,
which on being opened at the post office in the prisoner's
presence was found to contain the two halves of the
identical bank note for 5001., which had been remitted
from Huddersfield by Mr. Haigh to his London brokers,
Messrs. Moore and Carr, so many months before. On its
production by the officer, the prisoner volunteered a state-
ment that he had picked it up on Finsbury Pavement in
a pocket-book, ten months ago. These facts having been

The prisoner, when called upon for his defence, repeated his former statement, that he had found the note in ques




tion in a pocket-book, which he had picked up on Finsbury Pavement, and added, that he had kept it all this time in expectation of seeing a reward offered for it, which he could claim as his remuneration. He admitted his guilt as to the five pound notes, but declared his innocence of the present charge.

Bramwell, B. (to the jury).—The possession of stolen property, shortly after it has been stolen, is strong evidence, in the absence of explanation, against the person charged; but here that is not the case, for the note was lost many months before the prisoner is proved to have had it, and although, no doubt, the prisoner had had the note for months in his possession, yet it must be remembered that he volunteered the statement that he had found it in a pocket-book at the spot already mentioned. You may have a shrewd suspicion as to how the prisoner became possessed of it, but suspicion is not sufficient to convict. If you only entertain a suspicion, acquit the prisoner. The jury returned a

Verdict of not guilty.


Coram Cockburn, C. J.

Trinity Term. DECLARATION, that the plaintiff Jane, being sole In an action

on a contract and unmarried, had been seduced by the defendant, and to pay a woman

a weekly sum had been delivered of a child by him, and that afterwards, for the in consideration of the premises, and that the plaintiff of a bastard,

www child of her's would keep the child, and would refrain from coming near by the de

fendant, on to the defendant and molesting him in any manner, the condition of

her not molesting him ; plea, that she molested him by charging bim, falsely and maliciously, and without any reasonable or probable cause, with being the father of another bastard child, and getting an order upon him as putative father (which had been quashed on appeal):-Held, that to find for the defendant the jury must be satisfied that the charge was falsely and fraudulently made, and that they must decide that question on the evidence before them, without any regard to the decision of the magistrates : held, also, that the defendant was entitled to begin.




defendant promised to pay her 12s. a week, as aliment for and on account of the child.

Averment, of all conditions precedent.

Breach, nonpayment of the said sum for thirty-five weeks.

Common count, for money payable for the maintenance of a child for the defendant, at her request, &c.

Pleas, to the first count, except as to 51. 8s., being nine weeks' aliment, that after the weekly sum, in this plea mentioned, became due, and during the residue of the weekly payments of the said count mentioned became due, the plaintiff did not refrain from coming to or near the house of the defendant or from molesting him, but on the contrary (a), in violation of the agreement, frequently and on divers days came to or near the defendant's house for the purpose of molesting him, and then did so molest him, by making a noise and disturbance, &c., and by falsely and maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause, charging and accusing him to be the father of another bastard child, and by falsely and maliciously, &c., causing him to be registered as the father, and by falsely and maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause making an application to a police magistrate for a summons on the defendant, as the alleged father of the child, and by falsely, &c., procuring it to be served on the defendant, and by falsely, &c. causing him to appear and attend before the magistrate to answer the said false charge, and by falsely, &c. causing the magistrate to adjudge the defendant to be the putative father of the child, and make an order on him as such putative father for the payment to the plaintiff, as the mother of the child, of a certain weekly sum, and which order was obtained by the false testimony and imposition of the plaintiff, and all which said acts were done by the plaintiff with the intent to molest the defendant, and whereby and by reason of such and the like acts of

(a) This defined the breach ; Edge v. Pemberton, 12 M. & W. 187.




the plaintiff he was molested, and was put to great ex-
pense and annoyance in appearing against the order and
getting it quashed and set aside, wherefore he refused to
continue the said payments. And as to the second count,
except as to 51. 8s., parcel, &c. (averring it to be the same
sum and cause of action as in the former count): never
indebted as to 21. 8s., parcel of the said sum of 51. 8s.
payment; and as to the residue, payment into Court.

H. Mills, Q.C., and Day, for the plaintiff.
Hawkins and Ribton for the defendant.

Hawkins, for the defendant, claimed the right to begin ; and, as the onus was on the defendant of proving one entire plea,

COCKBURN, C. J., allowed it, as the law was admitted, subject to the special defence set up.

The facts stated in the first count, down to the general averment of conditions precedent, were proved.

In July, 1858, the first child was born.
In March, 1859, the defendant was married.

In April, 1859, the plaintiff molested the defendant by going to his house, &c.

On the 30th May, 1859, the agreement declared on in the first count was entered into; and it was, as there stated, conditioned that the plaintiff should not molest the defendant in any way.

The allowance was paid until July, 1861.

In March, 1860, the plaintiff told the attorney of the defendant, who paid it to her, that she was again with child by him; and this was communicated to him. And in that year she went to his house and annoyed him.

The allowance was still paid to her, with an admonition that if she so acted again it would be withdrawn.

On the 28th September, 1860, the second child was born.

« PreviousContinue »