the same per son within six months may be in cenies from in the same indictment against the same person for any number of distinct acts of stealing, not exceeding three, which may have been committed by him against the same person within the space of six calendar months from the first to the last of such acts, and to proceed thereon for all or any of them. cluded in the same indict ment. Where a single taking the prosecu tor not required to it appear that there were more than XVII. If upon the trial of any indictment for laris charged, ceny it shall appear that the property alleged in such indictment to have been stolen at one time was taken elect, unless at different times (p), the prosecutor shall not by reason thereof be required to elect upon which taking he will three takings, proceed, unless it shall appear that there was more six months than three takings, or that more than the space of six calendar months elapsed between the first and the last of such takings; and in either of such last-mentioned cases the prosecutor shall be required to elect to proceed for such number of takings, not exceeding three, or more than between the first and last taking. (See Reg. v. Purchase, Car. & Mar. 617.) For form of indictment for larceny, charging three larcenies from the same person within six months, see Appendix (9). The statute makes no such provision with reference to receiving goods knowing them to be stolen; consequently, if three distinct receivings be laid or proved, the prosecutor must elect which he will prosecute. (R. v. Dunn, 1 Mood. C. C. 146.) (p) The rule heretofore has been, in indictments for larceny, that where several articles were mentioned in an indictment the prosecutor was bound to prove that they were all stolen at the same time, or, if at several times, so near each other as to form one continuing transaction, and in case of his failing to do so he was required to elect on which to proceed. (Reg. v. Oddy, 2 Den. C. C. 264.) Now, however, if the property alleged in the indictment to have been stolen should be proved to have been taken on three different occasions within the space of six calendar months from the prosecutor, he will not be obliged to make his election, although they are alleged in the indictment to have all been stolen at one and the same time. as appear to have taken place within the period of six calendar months from the first to the last of such takings. bank notes scribed money. XVIII. In every indictment in which it shall be coin and necessary to make any averment as to any money or may be deany note of the Bank of England, or any other bank, simply as it shall be sufficient to describe such money or bank note simply us money (q), without specifying any particular coin or bank note; and such allegation, so far as regards the description of the property, shall be sustained by proof of any amount of coin or of any bank note, although the particular species of coin of which such amount was composed, or the particular nature of the bank note, shall not be proved; and in cases of embezzlement and obtaining money or bank notes by false pretences, by proof that the offender embezzled or obtained any piece of coin or any bank (9) Up to the passing of the present statute it was necessary, in indictments for stealing money, to describe it as "fifteen pieces of the current gold coin of this realm, called sovereigns, of the value of fifteen pounds, and ten pieces of the current silver coin of this realm, called shillings, of the value of ten shillings, of the monies of the said A. B." It was not enough to charge that the prisoner stole "ten pounds in monies, numbered," but it was necessary to specify some particular coin, with which the evidence was obliged to correspond. (Dickenson, 253; 3 Chitty's Burn's Justice, 435; R. v. Fry, Russ. & Ry. 482.) The inconvenience of this state of the law was strongly felt in the recent case of Reg. v. Bond, argued before the Court of Criminal Appeal. (1 Den. C. C. 517.) In that case the jury found the prisoner guilty of having stolen the sum of 701. in coin from the banking house in which he was employed as a clerk, but they were not able to say what particular kind of coin; and on a case reserved the conviction was quashed. The above section now, however, assimilates the law of larceny to that respecting embezzlement by clerks, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 48. Certain provisions of 23 Geo. 2, c. 11, and 31 Geo. 3 (I.) extended. note, or any portion of the value thereof, although such piece of coin or bank note may have been delivered to him in order that some part of the value thereof should be returned to the party delivering the same, or to any other person, and such part shall have been returned accordingly. XIX. Whereas by an act of parliament passed in England in the twenty-third year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Second, intituled "An Act to render Prosecutions for Perjury and Subornation of Perjury more easy and effectual," and by a certain other act of parliament made in Ireland in the thirty-first year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Third, intituled "An Act to render Prosecutions for Perjury and Subornation of Perjury more easy and effectual, and for affirming the Jurisdiction of the Quarter Sessions in Cases of Perjury," certain provisions were made to prevent persons guilty of perjury and subornation of perjury from escaping punishment by reason of the difficulties attending such prosecutions: and whereas it is expedient to amend tice, &c. may and extend the same: be it enacted, that it shall and Any court, judge, jus direct a per son guilty of may be lawful for the judges or judge of any of the perjury in &c. to be any evidence, superior courts of common law or equity, or for any prosecuted; of Her Majesty's justices or commissioners of assize, nisi prius, oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery, or for any justices of the peace, recorder or deputy recorder, chairman, or other judge, holding any general or quarter sessions of the peace, or for any commissioner of bankruptcy or insolvency, or for any judge or deputy judge of any county court or any court of record, or for any justices of the peace in special or petty sessions, or for any sheriff or his lawful deputy before whom any writ of inquiry or writ of trial from any of the party, enter into re to appear and and bind persons to the superior courts shall be executed (r), in case it shall appear to him or them that any person has been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury in any evidence given, or in any affidavit, deposition, examination, answer, or other proceeding made or taken before him or them, to direct such person to be prosecuted for such perjury, in case there shall appear to him or them a reasonable cause for such prosecution, and to commit such person so directed to be prosecuted until and commit the next session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery unless he for the county or other district within which such cognizance perjury was committed, unless such person shall enter take his trial, into a recognizance, with one or more sufficient surety give evior sureties, conditioned for the appearance of such dence; person at such next session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, and that he will then surrender and take his trial, and not depart the court without leave, and to require any person he or they may think fit to enter into a recognizance, conditioned to prosecute or give evidence against such person so directed to be prosecuted as aforesaid, and to give to the party so bound to prosecute a certificate of the same being and give cerdirected, which certificate shall be given without any prosecution being directfee or charge, and shall be deemed sufficient proof of ed, which such prosecution having been directed as aforesaid; and upon the production thereof the costs of such prosecution shall and are hereby required to be allowed (r) By 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, it is enacted, that perjury may be assigned upon a false oath taken before an arbitrator, appointed under rule of the superior courts; but it is not so in the case of a false oath taken before an arbitrator appointed under the County Court Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, as by neither common law nor the statute is he empowered to administer an oath. (Reg. v. Hallett, Court of Criminal Appeal, 2 Den. C. C. 237.) tificate of shall be suf ficient evi dence of the same. Extending the 23 Geo. 2, by the court before which any person shall be prosecuted or tried in pursuance of such direction as aforesaid, unless such last-mentioned court shall specially otherwise direct; and when allowed by any such court in Ireland such sum as shall be so allowed shall be ordered by the said court to be paid to the prosecutor by the treasurer of the county in which such offence shall be alleged to have been committed, and the same shall be presented for, raised, and levied in the same manner as the expenses of prosecutions for felonies are now presented for, raised, and levied in Ireland : provided always, that no such direction or certificate shall be given in evidence upon any trial to be had against any person upon a prosecution so directed as aforesaid. XX. In every indictment for perjury, or for unlawfully, wilfully, falsely, fraudulently, deceitfully, offences, and maliciously, or corruptly taking, making, signing, or subscribing any oath, affirmation, declaration, affidavit, deposition, bill, answer, notice, certificate, or other writing, it shall be sufficient (s) to set forth the sub simplifying indictments for perjury and other like offences. (s) 23 Geo. 2, c. 11, s. 1, here referred to, enacts that it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged upon the defendant, and by what court, or before whom, the oath was taken (averring such court, or person or persons, to have competent authority to administer the same), together with the proper averment or averments to falsify the matter or matters wherein the perjury is assigned, without setting out the commission or authority of the court or person before whom the perjury was committed." The averments marked in italic will still be necessary, for the present statute does not repeal the provisions of 23 Geo. 2, c. 11, nor say that an indictment shall be sufficient without such averments; but by this section of the new statute the form applicable to the cases within 23 Geo. 2, c. 11, will be sufficient in all the offences above enumerated. (See p. 84; Reg v. Brown, 1 Den. C. C. 291.) |