his possession, and which he was now called on to produce. The witness, however, as he had it from his client, submitted that he was not to be called upon to produce it against him. The learned BARON said the present charge was not against Chamberlain, but Hurrell; and he thought, therefore, that the witness was bound to produce the document. It turned out that this summons, however, was not the one on which the charge was heard, but a prior one; and The learned BARON said this would not do. The essence of the offence of perjury was false swearing in a judicial proceeding on a material matter. The basis of the whole case, therefore, was the charge or summons on which the case before the magistrates had been heard, and the indictment necessarily alleged it. Not being properly proved and produced the case failed, and the prisoner must be acquitted for defect of evidence. The prisoner was accordingly discharged. Chamberlain was then placed at the bar, charged with the perjury before the County Court Judge. The proceedings before the County Court Judge were produced. Hurrell, the other defendant, who had just been discharged, was called and examined in support of the defence, and The prisoner was acquitted. 1862. REGINA บ. HURRELL. 1862. Essex Summer Assizes. When a girl under sixteen has been found in the streets by herself and seduced away, that is not a taking out of the possession of the father, even though he is living in the place and she lives with him. REGINA v. GREEN AND BATES. THE prisoners were indicted for that they did take one Susannah Robinson, an unmarried girl, being under the age of sixteen years, out of the possession and against the will of her father. G. Shaw for the prosecution. Ribton and Lloyd for the prisoners. The girl was under fourteen, and lived with her father, a fisherman at Southend. On the 23rd of June last the prisoners saw her in the streets of that place, by herself, and invited her to go with them, giving her drink to induce her, which made her dizzy and sick. They took her to a lonely house which was undergoing repair, and there Green had criminal intercourse with her, keeping her there all night. Next morning the child was found there crying, and this charge was preferred. On the opening of the case, MARTIN, B., said there must be a taking out of the possession of the father (a). Here the prisoners picked up the girl in the streets, and, for anything that appeared, they might not have known that the girl had a father. The essence of the offence was taking the girl out of the possession of the father. The girl was not taken out of the possession of any one (a). The prisoners, no doubt, had (a) It should seem that this view of the statute, the words of which are, "take out of the possession, and against the will of her father," &c., is in accordance with its natural construction and with the nearest analogies and authorities. Thus an action for seduction is not main- action lies by a guardian for taking a minor out of his or her actual custody (Gilbert v. Schwenck, 14 M. & W. 488). But the word used in the statute is stronger even than custody, for it is possession, which is the strongest term that could be used, so as to point to a closer and stricter sense of custody than might satisfy the common law requisites of an action by the guardian, and has a much stronger im done a very immoral act, but the question was whether they had committed an illegal act. The criminal law ought not to be strained to meet a case which did not come within it. The act of the prisoners was scandalous, but it was not any legal offence. He had told the grand jury so, and advised them to throw out the bill. He should direct the jury to acquit the prisoners. The formal verdict of not guilty was then taken, and The prisoners were discharged. port than the word charge, which is used in the text-books. Even when the girl has gone to the man out of her father's house, it has been held that the man must be actually present, actively assisting, so as to satisfy the words of the statute, "take out of the possession," &c. (R. REGINA v. WELSH. Essex Summer Assizes. THE prisoner was indicted for maliciously setting fire to A conversation a stack of oats, worth 100%. Kemp for the prosecution. Murphy for the prisoner. between the prisoner and his mother, in which she made a state ment to his prejudice, nied :- Held, against him. On the 30th of March last the fire was burning at half- which he depast twelve at night, and at ten minutes to one the prisoner not admissible was found near to it lighting his pipe. He gave certain in evidence accounts which were proved to be false, as, that he had seen the fire from his bedroom window and had got up to see it, and that he had come to it in a certain direction. This was the main evidence against him. It was attempted to give in evidence a certain conversation between the prisoner and his mother; he saying to her, "You know I was at home;" and she saying, "What's the use of denying it?" 1862. REGINA v. WELSH. Murphy objected to the evidence, as it would have the effect, in an indirect way, of giving evidence that the prisoner was not at home on the night in question, which ought to be proved by calling the mother; and MARTIN, B., thought the evidence was not admissible; for what was said in the presence of the prisoner was only admissible against him when admitted, whereas here it was denied by him (a). At the close of the case, Murphy was about to address the jury for the defence, and appealed to his Lordship whether he need do so, upon which The learned BARON said he was of opinion that there was no case for a conviction, and that the case was only one of suspicion. He therefore directed the jury to acquit the prisoner, and, accordingly, (a) What the prisoner has been overheard to say to another, is equally admissible "(i. e., as confessions or admissions) though it is a species of evidence to be received with much caution" (Roscoe, Crim. Ev. 138). Here, it will be observed, the evidence is put as evidence of an admission by the prisoner. No doubt, statements made in the presence and hearing of the prisoner are sometimes admissible, where the parties who made the statements cannot be called, as in the case of statements by a murdered person or the like. But even Verdict not guilty. the statement of an accomplice cannot be proved against the prisoner though made in his presence and hearing (R. v. Appleby, 3 Stark. 33). And here it was attempted obviously to prove the conversation, for the sake of the woman's statement, not of the prisoner's denial, which would not be regarded, because in his own favour; whereas her statement would have great weight, and she was not to be called as a witness, though in cross-examination it might have been shown that she was mistaken. 1862. Coram Bramwell, B. HARRISON v. CANT. THIS was an action of debt. Essex Summer having been There were two pleas denying the debt and alleging Issue not payment, and also a third plea of a composition and joined on a arrangement under the new Bankruptcy Act. plea and the defendant not jury were discharged in order to allow semble, there might have The defendant had demurred to the latter plea, in order appearing, the to raise the question whether, under the new Act, an arrangement with a majority of a man's creditors binds of a summons those who dissent from it; but by some mistake on the to amend, and Nisi Prius record there was issue taken on that plea, and there was no issue on the second plea. This was not discovered before the cause was called on and the jury sworn (on the first day of the assizes), when, the cause being undefended, and no one appearing for the defendant, The learned BARON, having observed it, pointed it out as an evident mistake. Pearce, the counsel for the plaintiff, said it was clearly a mistake, and perhaps the learned JUDGE would amend it; but The learned BARON said he doubted if he could amend, in the absence of the defendant. He would consult his brother MARTIN as to the right course to pursue. On his return into Court, The learned BARON said his brother MARTIN was of opinion that the proper course would be to discharge the jury, as there was no complete issue to try, and bring it on again on Thursday (a). In the meantime there might be a summons to amend. (a) It was not pointed out, that the issue would have to be added by the plaintiff, and, though regularly, it should be done of course before notice of trial, and be de- been an amend ment at once. |