1832. REX V. KING. inquiries at Nottingham, at which place the bill purported to be drawn, for Thomas Webb, the drawer, but was not able to hear any thing of him. On his cross-examination, he admitted that he was a stranger to both these places, and that he had not procured any person from either place to prove that such persons as Knight and Webb were not known at them. On his re-examination he stated, that he had made inquiries in King-square, but could not hear of any such person as the prisoner there. Carrington, for the prisoner, submitted that the evidence of the prosecutor did not satisfactorily shew that the signatures," Samuel Knight" and "Thomas Webb," were not those of real persons. He referred to the case of a prosecution at the instance of the King's College, in London, where, to prove that a certain name was fictitious, the twopenny postman, and also a police-officer of the district in which the person was described as residing, were called as witnesses; and he contended, that, in the present case, witnesses should have been called, who were well acquainted with Birmingham and Nottingham respectively. Mr. Justice J. PARKE (after conferring with the other Judges present) said—I have consulted with my learned brothers, and they are of opinion with me that it is evidence to go to the Jury. It is not, certainly, the most satisfactory evidence; nor is it the evidence that is usually given in such cases: but it is evidence. It will be for the Jury to say whether it is sufficient. The prisoner, in his defence, said that he took the bill from Thomas Webb, the drawer, and gave him value for it. Two witnesses were called on his behalf, who stated that they knew Thomas Webb, and that the drawing and indorsement were of his handwriting. They described him as having lived at one time at Nottingham, and at another in Weymouth-terrace, Hackney-road. The prosecutor said, that the person who came with the prisoner was described as living in Weymouth-terrace, but his name was said to be Smith. No such person, however, could be found on inquiry there. Mr. Justice J. PARKE (in summing up) said-The first question for your consideration will be, whether you are satisfied that the acceptance in the name of Samuel Knight is in the name of a person not in existence. There is some evidence of this. The prosecutor says, he was twice at Birmingham, and on the second occasion inquired at the bank, and at a place where the overseers met. Certainly this is not the most satisfactory evidence. A banker from Birmingham, or an overseer, might have been called. On the other hand, the prisoner, who best knows the state of the matter, has not called any body to prove that there is such a person as Samuel Knight, whose writing it is. If he had done this, it would have been satisfactory. It will be for you to say, whether the inquiries made by Beit are sufficient, in the absence of any evidence on the part of the prisoner. If you think they are, then you will find him guilty, otherwise not. With respect to the indorsement of Webb, the prisoner has produced evidence. It may be a fraudulent transaction altogether; yet, if the signatures are those of persons actually in existence, though the bill may be false and fraudulent, still it cannot be said to be forged. Carrington, for the prisoner. The prisoner was also indicted for stealing the metal; but it appearing from the prosecutor's statement that he parted with the property in the article, an acquittal was taken; but he was afterwards Verdict-Not guilty. ordered to be detained in custody 1832. REX บ. KING. 1832. Jan. 10th. for shooting another, with intent to mur der, &c., in all the counts aver that the pistol REX v. HUGHES and ANN WORSLEY. If an indictment THE indictment charged the prisoner Hughes with shooting at the prisoner Worsley with intent to murder her, and the prisoner Worsley with being present aiding and assisting him (a). Another count charged the intent to be, to do her some grievous bodily harm. There were other counts in the indictment, but all of them stated the shooting to be with a pistol, loaded with gunpowder and a leaden bullet. was loaded with powder and a leaden bullet, it must appear that the pistol was loaded with a bullet, or the prisoner will be entitled to an acquittal. From the evidence on the part of the prosecution, it appeared that the prisoner Worsley was housekeeper to a person, named Bentley, who had an organ, which the prisoner Hughes was in the habit of coming to play; that on Saturday, the 22nd of October, he came about teatime, and Bentley left him in company with the prisoner Worsley, at ten o'clock at night, when he retired to rest. About eleven, he was awakened from sleep by the report of fire-arms, accompanied by the sound of a fall upon the floor overhead in the room in which he left the prisoners. He immediately rose, and went into the housekeeper's room, and discovered both prisoners lying on the floor, (a) In Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, title Felo de se, Book 1, c. 9, s. 6, it is said, "He who kills another, upon his desire or command, is, in the judgment of the law, as much a murderer, as if he had done it merely of his own head; and the person killed is not looked upon as a felo do se, inasınuch as his assent was merely void, as being against the laws of God and man. But where two persons agree to die together, and one of them, at the persuasion of the other, buys ratsbane, and mixes it in a potion, and both drink of it, and he who bought and made the potion survives by using proper remedies, and the other dies; perhaps, it is the better opinion, that he who dies shall be adjudged a felo de se, because all that happened was originally owing to his own wicked purpose, and the other only put it in his power to execute it in that particular manner." See also Rex v. Dyson, Russ. & Ry., C. C. R. 523; and Carr. Sup. 230. bleeding. On their being asked, what was the matter, and who fired? the male prisoner said, "I fired one pistol at her, and the other at myself." The woman only said, "Lord, have mercy upon me." They were taken to St. Thomas's Hospital, where the man said-" He could feel the ball somewhere in his cheek." The woman being asked there, whether she wished Hughes to shoot her? replied-That she did; and had removed her cap for the purpose. The surgeon, who attended them, before they were removed to the hospital, said, that both prisoners were bleeding from the ear, the bones of which were shattered, but no bullet could be found on examination, internally and externally, either in the man or the He added, that he thought the wound was either from the ball or the wadding of a pistol; and that the wadding, if rammed down tight, might have produced the effect, without any ball. It was also proved, that search was made in the room, but no ball was found. woman. C. Phillips, for the prisoners, submitted that the averment in the indictment, that the pistol was loaded with a bullet, had not been proved, and therefore the case was not sustained. He referred to Archbold's Treatise upon Mr. Peel's Acts, Vol. 2, p. 43, where, in a note to the form of an indictment for shooting, which stated the pistol to be loaded with a leaden bullet, it is said "The prosecutor must prove the shooting, as stated in the indictment; and either must shew expressly, that the pistol was loaded with gunpowder and a bullet, or prove circumstances, from which the Jury may fairly infer it." BOLLAND, B., who tried the case, consulted with Mr. Justice Park, and Mr. Justice James Parke, who were present, and then said to the Jury-The offence is charged, in every count of the indictment, as having been committed with a pistol, loaded with a leaden bullet. If the question had arisen with respect to the pistol fired by 1832. REX บ. HUGHES. 1832. REX บ. HUGHES. the man at himself, I should have felt it my duty to leave it to you, on his declaration, that he thought he felt a ball in his cheek. But he might have intended to kill himself, being weary of life, though he might not have intended to kill the woman, notwithstanding her request. I have consulted with my learned brothers, and it is our opinion, that the indictment is not sufficiently proved, to justify you in a verdict of guilty (a). A. was indicted THE prisoner was indicted for the manslaughter of Ann for the man slaughter of B., by a blow of a hammer. No proof was given of the striking of any blow, only of a scuffle between the parties. The appearance of the injury was consistent with Evans. The indictment charged the wound to have been inflicted by a blow with a hammer, which he held in his hand. It appeared that the prisoner and the deceased lodged in the same house, and that, on the day in the indictment, (frequent disputes having previously taken place on the the supposition, either of a blow with a hammer, or of a push against the lock or key of a door:Held, that if it was occasioned by a blow with a hammer or any other hard substance held in the hand, it was sufficient to support the indictment; but otherwise, if it was the result of a push against the door. |