1842. GWYNNE v. SHARPE. but such evidence cannot be allowed to be given, because the matters are admitted, and are not put in issue, which they might have been, if the defendant had chosen to put the plaintiff to the proof of the statements contained in them. Verdict for the plaintiff. Ludlow, Serjt., Carrington, and J. Jefferys Williams, for the plaintiff. Talfourd, Serjt., and F. V. Lee, for the defendant. [Attornies-Martin, and Darvill.] she was taken before a magis trate, and was discharged, no with her mis- REGINA V. CAROLINE HEWETT. LARCENY. The prisoner was indicted for stealing thir teen sovereigns and other money, the property of Sarah Cooper, her mistress. It appeared that the money was stolen on the evening of Monday, the 14th of February, 1842, and the prisoner being suspected, Mrs. Cooper, on that evening, told the prisoner that she would forgive her if she told the truth. On the next day, Tuesday, the prisoner was taken before a magistrate, but Mrs. Cooper not appearing against her, she was discharged and placed under her brother's care. After that, the prisoner made a statement. J. Jefferys Williams, for the prisoner, objected that this Bridewell, and statement was inadmissible, on the ground that the im told her in the presence of her mistress, that she "was not bound to say anything unless she liked, and that if she had anything to say her mistress would hear her;" but the superintendent (not knowing that her mistress had promised to forgive her) did not tell her that if she made a statement it might be given in evidence against her. The prisoner made a statement :-Held, that this statement was not receivable in evidence, as the promise of the mistress must be considered as still operating on the prisoner's mind at the time of the statement, but that if the mistress had not been then present, it might have been otherwise. pression produced on the prisoner's mind, by Mrs. Cooper's promise of pardon the evening before, had not been removed. Mrs. Cooper, in answer to questions put by the learned Judge, said, that she did not tell the prisoner on the Tuesday that she would not forgive, nor that anything she said would be given in evidence against her. PATTESON, J.-I think that her statement cannot be given in evidence. Mr. Houlton, the superintendent of police at Reading, was called, and he stated, that on the Wednesday morning he was sent for to the Bridewell, where the prisoner was, and that he went there with Mrs. Cooper. Mr. Houlton stated, that he told the prisoner, in the presence of Mrs. Cooper, that she was not bound to say anything unless she liked, and that if she had any thing to say Mrs. Cooper would hear her. He further stated, that he did not know, at that time, that Mrs. Cooper had promised to forgive her if she would tell the truth, and that he did not tell the prisoner, that if she said anything it might be given in evidence against her. She then made a statement. J. Jefferys Williams, for the prisoner, objected to this statement being received in evidence, and cited the case of Regina v. Taylor (a). A. Wood, for the prosecution.-In the case of Rex v. Nute (b), the prisoner was charged with setting fire to an out-house, and her mistress told her if she would repent God would forgive her, but she concealed from her that she would not forgive her herself. She confessed, and the next day another person in her mistress's sight, though (a) 8 C. & P. 733. (b) Chitt. ed. of Burn's Just., tit. Evidence. 1842. REGINA V. HEWETT. 1842. REGINA บ. HEWETT. out of hearing, told her that her mistress had said she had confessed, and drew from her a second confession. Lord Eldon allowed the confessions to be given in evidence, and the prisoner was convicted. Lord Eldon having left it to the jury to say whether the first confession was made under a hope of favour here, and the second, under the influence of the first, and the jury found that that was so. The twelve Judges held that these points were not for the jury; but that if Lord Eldon agreed with the jury, which he did, the confessions were receivable. PATTESON, J.-There the supposed inducement was that God would forgive her-here Mrs. Cooper says that she will forgive her. The nearest case to the present is that of Isabella Meynell (c). In that case the prisoner was charged with stealing hams, and a constable had said to the prisoner, in the presence of one of the prosecutors, "You had better tell all about it ;" and she made a statement which was not given in evidence. In the afternoon of the same day, another of the prosecutors went to the house of the prisoner, and entered into conversation with her about the hams, when she repeated the confession she had made to the constable in the morning; but no promise or menace was on this occasion held out to her. Sir G. A. Lewin, for the prosecution, requested the learned Judge's opinion, whether he was at liberty to make use of the latter confession. Mr. Justice Taunton said-" I am clearly of opinion that it is not receivable, it being impossible to say that it was not induced by the promise the constable made to her in the morning." I think that the statement of the prisoner is not receivable in evidence. If Mrs. Cooper had not been present when the statement was made it might have been different; but I think that, as Mrs. Cooper was present, and the interval of time was only from the Monday to the Wednesday, the impression (c) 2 Lew. C. C. 122. produced by Mrs. Cooper's promise of forgiveness on the Monday evening, must be considered as still operating on the prisoner's mind. The evidence was rejected. 1842. REGINA v. HEWETT. A. Wood, for the prosecution. Verdict-Guilty. Carrington, and J. Jefferys Williams, for the prisoner. [Attornies-Slocombe, and Richards.] (Crown Side.) BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CRESSWELL. FALSE REGINA v. BLOOMFIELD. the first count was charged in ment with having falsely pre of an indict tended that he was Mr. H., who had cured Mrs. C. at the pretences. The first count of the indictment A defendant stated that the defendant, on &c., at &c., " did unlawfully falsely pretend to one Charlotte, the wife of George Palmer, that he, the said Daniel Bloomfield, was Mister Hitchings, and that he was the same person that had cured Mistress Clarke, at the Oxford infirmary. By means of which said false pretence, he, the said Daniel Bloomfield, did then and there obtain from the said George Palmer, the husband of the said Charlotte Palmer, one piece of the current gold coin of this realm, called a sovereign, of the monies, goods, and chattels of the said George Palmer, * with intent then and there to cheat and defraud him, the said George Palmer, of the same; whereas, in truth and in fact, &c. [negativing the false pretences]. The second mary, and thereby obtaining one sove reign, with in tent to defraud G. P. " of the same." The second count laid the intent to be to de fraud G. P. "of the sum of 5s., parcel of the value of the defendant made a bottle containThe prosecutor said last-mentioned piece of the current gold coin." It was proved that the the pretence, and thereby induced the prosecutor to buy, at the expense of 58., ing something which he said would cure the eye of the prosecutor's child. gave him a sovereign and received 158. in change. It was further proved that the defendant was not Mr. H. Held, that this was a false pretence within the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53, and that the intent was properly laid in the second count. VOL. I. N N N. P. 1842. REGINA บ. BLOOMFIELD. count was exactly similar to the first count, except that instead of the words between the **, the following were inserted" with intent to cheat and defraud him, the said George Palmer, of the sum of five shillings, parcel of the value of the said last-mentioned piece of the current gold coin." The third, fourth, and fifth counts alleged the pretence to have been made to the husband, and that a sovereign was obtained from him, with intent to defraud him of "the same;" and in the third count it was stated in a prefatory allegation, that, in the year, 1840, Elizabeth Clarke was a patient in the Oxford infirmary, and that she was attended by and was under the care of one George Hitchings, the said George Hitchings then being a surgeon. Mrs. Palmer, the wife of the prosecutor, was called, she said "On the 4th of February, the defendant came to our house, he said, 'I am a gentleman come from Oxford to give advice to poor people, for I understand the parish doctor is severe to the poor.' I asked him, 'Are you Mr. Hitchings?' and he replied, 'I am; yes, yes.' I then asked him if he was the same person that had cured Mrs. Clarke at the Oxford infirmary, and he replied, 'I am.' I had a child in my arms, the defendant looked at the child's eyes, and said that the child would lose them in less than a month, and he asked me if I would go to the expense of two bottles of stuff for the child, at 5s. 6d. a bottle, which would be 11s. I said, I could not afford it; he then asked if I would go to the expense of one bottle, which would be 58. 6d. I said, 'If you think my child will lose its eye I will go to the expense of one.' The defendant asked for a bottle, which I gave him. I went up stairs, and on my return I saw something yellow in the bottle. My husband gave the defendant a sovereign, and the defendant gave him in change two crown pieces and two half-crowns, saying he would let us have the stuff for five shillings." George Palmer, the prosecutor, stated, that Mrs. Clarke, who was now dead, was his grandmother, and that he would |