From the evidence it appeared, that, on the 5th of February, between six and seven in the evening, both the prisoners, Charles and William Williams, were seen by a police constable in company together near Westminster Bridge. He gave his evidence as follows:-"I watched them, and when they were near the Obelisk in Westminster Road, I saw Charles Williams give something to William Williams, who went near a shop window and rubbed it with his finger; he then crossed the road and went into Mrs. King's oil-shop; Charles remained on the opposite side of the road; William remained in the shop two or three minutes; he then came out and joined Charles; they went down the London Road and up Kennington Road; I then saw William rubbing something under a lamp opposite Mr. Bright's shop; he then went into the shop and came out again; Charles was standing across the road under the lamp; when William came out of Mr. Bright's shop, he went on, and went into Mr. Curtis's; Charles was standing across the road; when William came out of Curtis's he joined Charles again and they went on to Lambeth Walk; I followed them and laid hold of Charles by the throat; he struggled, and we both fell to the ground; he spat out five sixpences, which I produce; I searched him and found on him five-pence halfpenny in coppers, some tobacco and some stuff they call skim, which is used for rubbing sixpences; it was quite damp when I found it in his pocket." would be to make it appear Mr. Field, inspector of coin to the mint, said—" These five sixpences are all counterfeit; three are cast in one mould and two in another; the effect of rubbing the coin with dirt, or some mixture, the act of parliament. My Brother Alderson, who tried you, has directed me as to the amount of punishment which he would have awarded you. You have been in custody seven months; and, if he had passed sentence upon you, he would have sentenced you to eigh teen months' imprisonment. The 1842. REGINA บ. WILLIAMS. 1842. REGINA v. WILLIAMS. dark, as if it had been in a dirty or greasy pocket, or in circulation.” It was also proved that William Williams uttered one counterfeit sixpence at King's and another at Curtis's, at the times when he was seen to go there by the policeman. William Williams was found guilty, and both prisoners were sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. Payne, and Lucas, for the prosecution. [Attornies-Powell, and HOME SPRING CIRCUIT, 1841. KINGSTON ASSIZES. BEFORE MR. BARON PARKE. In replevin upon a taking of goods in a public-house and a brewery, there was an avowry as to the taking in the publichouse only BYE V. BOWER and CROOKS. REPLEVIN. The declaration stated the taking to have been in a public-house, and also in a brewery. The defendant pleaded jointly non ceperunt; and there was also an avowry and cognizance of the taking in the public-house for rent due on a demise thereof (not mentioning the (omitting the brewery). The Judge at the trial would not allow the avowry to be amended by inserting the brewery. The 23rd section of the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, does not extend to the amending of omissions in pleading. To prove that A. and B. took a distress, a witness was called, who stated that he saw two persons (whom he did not then know) take the distress, and that he had since learnt that their names were A. and B., and that he had seen A. in Court. Another witness, who knew A., proved that A. had been in Court:-Held, that this was evidence to go to the jury as to A., but not as to B., and that as to B. the evidence was not sufficient. brewery). Pleas in bar to the avowry and cognizance, non tenuit, and riens in arrear. Peacock, for the defendant, applied for leave to amend the avowry and cognizance, (under the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 23 (a),) by extending them to the brewery as well as the public-house, on the ground that the omission as to the brewery had occurred from mistake only. PARKE, B.—I think that I ought not to allow this amendment. It is an omission that you are asking to amend, and not a variance. I think that it is not within the scope of the 23rd section of the stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42 (b). No amendment was made. To prove the distress, a witness was called, who stated that he saw the goods taken by two persons, whom he then did not know, but that he afterwards learnt that one of them was named Bower and the other Crooks. Peacock, for the defendants.-I submit that there is not sufficient proof of identity. PARKE, B.-Not at present, certainly. The witness further proved that, since he had been in Court, he had seen one of the persons who had made the distress, and whose name he had learned to be Bower; and it was also proved by another witness that the defendant Bower (whom this witness had known before) had been in Court. PARKE, B.-I think that there is evidence to go to the (a) 6 C. & P. p. 531, n. a. (b) See the case of John v. Currie, Id. p. 618. 1841. BYE v. Bower. 1841. BYE v. BOWER. jury as to the identity of the defendant Bower, but not as to that of the defendant Crooks. The case was referred. Channell, Serjt., and Clarkson, for the plaintiff. Peacock, for the defendant. [Attornies-Kearns, and Cooper.] WELSH SPRING CIRCUIT, 1841. GLAMORGANSHIRE ASSIZES. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE COLTMAN. REGINA V. PETER WATKINS. The burglari- BURGLARY. The indictment charged that the pri ously breaking and entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a rape, is not a crime which includes soner "feloniously and burglariously, by night, the dwelling-house of one John Davies did break and enter, with intent one Alice Davies in the said dwelling-house then being violently and against her will then and there feloniously to ravish and carnally know; and that the said such a burglary Peter Watkins then and there in the said dwelling-house with force and arms feloniously did wound, beat, and strike victed of an as- the said Alice Davies, then being in the said dwelling an assault; and therefore in an indictment for the prisoner cannot be con sault under the 11th sect. of house," &c. the stat. 1 Vict. c. 85. An indictment charged a prisoner with having burglariously broken and entered a dwellinghouse, with intent one A. D. in the said dwelling-house then being violently and against her will then and there feloniously to ravish and carnally know;" whether that allegation is sufficient without the addition of the words, "in the said dwelling-house," after the words "then and there." Quære? E. V. Williams, for the prisoner.-I submit that the indictment is not sufficient. Burglary is defined to be a breaking and entering of the dwelling-house in the night time with intent to commit a felony therein. The indictment ought to have alleged the intent to be to ravish Alice Davies in the said dwelling-house, and not merely "then and there" (a). COLTMAN, J.–I shall certainly not stop the case on this objection; and if the jury should acquit the prisoner of the burglary, I will take the opinion of the jury as to the assault, though I much doubt whether a breaking into a dwelling-house in the night time with intent to ravish is a felony which includes an assault; and I will reserve the points for the consideration of the Judges, if it should become necessary. The jury found the prisoner not guilty of the W. M. James, for the prosecution. E. V. Williams, for the prisoner. [Attornies-Perkins & James, and Meyrick & Davies.] 1841. REGINA v. WATKINS. In the ensuing Term, the case was considered by the fifteen Judges, who were of opinion that the breaking and entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a rape, was not a crime which included an assault. The other point was not considered by their Lordships. (a) If this objection be valid, it seems that it would be necessary also to add the words "in the night time," in addition to those sug gested. See the case of Reg. |