Case. CROWN CASE RESERVED. June 23, 1849. REG. v. JOHN PASCOE. (a) 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 58-Receiving reward for helping to stolen goods, without bringing the thieves to justice-What is a corrupt receiving. Upon the trial of an indictment under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 58, which charged the corrupt receiving of money as a reward for helping to stolen goods, it was proved that the house of the prosecutrix had been robbed of cheeses, that the prisoner called upon her, and told her that he had some suspicion of the persons who had committed the robbery; that he proposed and executed a plan by which he brought to her house the persons whom he suspected, and the prosecutrix recognized them as persons who had been in her house the day before the robbery. She then said that she wished he could buy a bit of cheese of them, to which the prisoner assented; and received 31. for the purpose. The jury found that the prisoner knew the thieves, and assisted the prosecutrix at her request in endeavouring to purchase from them the stolen property, not meaning to bring them to justice. Held, that he "corruptly received" the money within the meaning of the statute. AT The T the last Warwick Assizes, L. C. Humfrey, Q.C., reserved the following case:-The prisoner was indicted under the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 58, for that he corruptly and feloniously did take and receive of and from Hannah Turley certain money and reward, to wit, three sovereigns, under pretence and upon account of then and there helping the said. Hannah Turley to certain goods and chattels, to wit, fourteen cheeses, which said goods had been before feloniously stolen, he the said John Pascoe not having caused the persons by whom the said goods had been so stolen to be apprehended and brought to trial for the same. prisoner was tried before me at the last assizes for the county of Warwick. The facts of the case were these. The prosecutrix had had her house broken open, and fourteen cheeses stolen. The prisoner, who was a tradesman employed by the prosecutrix, called upon her in the course of his business, and told her that he had some suspicion of the persons who had broken open her house. He proposed and executed a plan by which he brought to her house the persons he suspected of being concerned in the robbery; and, upon the prosecutrix seeing them, she at once recognized them as persons who had been in her house on the day previous to the night on which the robbery was effected. The prisoner asked the prosecutrix if she did not think they were implicated in the robbery she said, "Yes;" he said, "So do I." She said, “I : (a) Reported by A. BITTLESTON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. wish you would try if you could buy a bit of cheese of them; to which he assented, and she gave him 31. for that purpose. The prosecutrix saw the prisoner several times, when he told her that the cheese would come. The prosecutrix said, "You have got the money, and you don't mean to send me the cheese." He said she might have the money back again whenever she pleased. I left to the jury three questions. First, did the prisoner mean to screen the guilty parties, or to share the money with them? in which case I thought he was within the meaning of the statute. Secondly, did the prisoner know the thieves, and intend to assist them in getting rid of the cheese, by procuring the prosecutrix to buy it? in which case, also, I thought he was within the statute? Thirdly, did the prisoner know the thieves, and assist the prosecutrix, as her agent, and at her request, in endeavouring to purchase the stolen property from them, not meaning to bring the thieves to justice? To the first two questions the jury answered, "No;" to the third, "Yes." I directed the jury to find the prisoner guilty, reserving for the consideration of the judges the question whether the receipt of the money under the circumstances was a corrupt receiving within the meaning of the statute. I directed the prisoner to be kept in custody, that the opinion of the judges might be taken whether the conviction is right. The case stood for argument in last Easter Term (April 30), before Wilde, C. J., Rolfe, B., Cresswell, J., Platt, B., and Williams, J., but no counsel were instructed. Cur. adv. vult. REG. v. PASCOE. Corrupt receipt of reward for helping to stolen goods. WILDE, C. J., now delivered the judgment of the court.-In Judgment. this case the prisoner was convicted at the last assizes for the county of Warwick, before Mr. Humfrey, upon an indictment framed under the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 58, when a case was reserved for the opinion of the judges, which stated the prisoner to have been indicted for corruptly and feloniously taking and receiving of and from Hannah Turley certain money and reward, to wit, three sovereigns, under pretence and on account of then and there helping the said Hannah Turley to certain goods and chattels, that is to say, fourteen cheeses, which goods had been before feloniously stolen, he, Pascoe, not having caused the persons by whom the goods had been so stolen to be apprehended and brought to trial. The facts were, that the prosecutrix had had her house broken open, and fourteen cheeses stolen: the prisoner, who was a tradesman employed by the prosecutrix, called upon her, and told her that he had some suspicion of the persons who had broken open her house, and he proposed and executed a plan by which he brought to the house the persons whom he suspected had been concerned in the robbery, and the prosecutrix, upon seeing them, at once recognized them as persons who had been in her house on the day previous to the night upon which the robbery was effected. The prisoner asked the prosecutrix if she did not think they were implicated in the robbery: she said "Yes;" he said, "So do I;" REG. v. PASCOE. Corrupt receipt of reward for helping to stolen goods. and she said "I wish you would try to buy a bit of cheese of them;" to which he assented, and she gave him 37. for the purpose. The prosecutrix saw the prisoner several times, and said "You have got the money, and don't mean to send the cheese," and he said she might have the money back again, but he never gave it to her. Three questions were left to the jury. First, did the prisoner mean to screen the guilty parties, or to share the money with them? in which case they were told the case was within the meaning of the statute. Secondly, did the prisoner know the thieves, and intend to assist them in getting rid of the cheese by procuring the prosecutrix to buy it? in which case they were told the case was within the statute. And, thirdly, did the prisoner know the thieves, and assist the prosecutrix as her agent and at her request in endeavouring to purchase the stolen property from them, not meaning to bring the thieves to justice? To the first and second questions the jury answered "No," and to the third "Yes." The jury were then directed to find the prisoner guilty, reserving for the consideration of the judges the question whether the receipt of Judgment. the the money under the circumstances was a corrupt receiving within the meaning of the statute; and the prisoner was kept in custody, subject to the opinion of the judges. This case has been considered by the court, and we are of opinion, upon the facts found by the jury, that the receipt of the money by the prisoner was a corrupt receiving of such money within the meaning of the statute, the facts found being that the prisoner knew the thieves, and assisted the prosecutrix in endeavouring to purchase the stolen property from them, not meaning to bring them to justice. This finding establishes all the facts necessary to constitute the offence described in the statute. The words are, "and be it enacted, that every person who shall corruptly take any money or reward directly or indirectly, under pretence or on account of helping any person to any chattel, money, valuable security, &c., which shall, by any felony or misdemeanor, have been stolen, taken, obtained, or converted as aforesaid, shall, unless he cause the offender to be apprehended and brought to trial for the same, be guilty of felony." We think the conviction, therefore, was legal and proper. Conviction affirmed. CROWN CASE RESERVED. June 23, 1849. REG. v. HARRIET LANGBridge. Deposition of witness on criminal charge-Caption—Admissibility. Upon the trial of an indictment for false pretences, a witness being ill, her deposition, taken before the committing magistrate, was tendered in evidence. The caption of that deposition stated that it was taken before the committing magistrate in the presence of the prisoner, on a charge 'for obtaining money, and valuable securities for money, from M. R.;" not saying illegally or by false pretences. It was objected that it was not admissible, because no offence was shown to have been charged. Held, that it was admissible; as it sufficiently appeared from the examination itself, that it related to the charge upon which the prisoner was being tried. 66 AT T the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace of our Lady Case. the Queen, held at the castle of Exeter, in and for the county aforesaid, on Tuesday the 20th day of February, 1849, before Baldwin Fulford, Esq., Montague Baker Bere, Esq., and others, their companions, justices, &c. Harriet Langbridge was indicted for unlawfully obtaining, by means of false pretences, from Mary Rowe, one promissory note for the payment of the sum of 50l. and interest, and of the value of 50% of the property of Charlotte Rowe, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Charlotte Rowe of the same. Upon the trial of the prisoner the deposition of Mary Rowe was put in by the counsel for the prosecution. Proof was given that it was taken by the committing justice in the presence of the prisoner, and that she had a full opportunity of cross-examining the said Mary Rowe, the witness; that it was signed by William Ponsford Clerk, the justice before whom the same purports to have been taken; and that the said Mary Rowe was at the time of the trial so ill as not to be able to travel. The charge preferred before the committing justice was, that the prisoner had obtained the promissory note, and other valuable securities, by means of false pretences. And of this charge the prisoner was informed by the committing justice. The caption of the deposition of the said Mary Rowe is as follows: Devon, to wit. The examination of Mary Rowe, wife of William Squire Rowe, of Thornbury Farm, in the parish of Hittisleigh in the county of Devon, taken on oath this 14th day of February, in the year of our Lord 1849, at Hittisleigh, in the county aforesaid, before the undersigned William Ponsford Clerk, v. Admissibility REG. one of Her Majesty's justices of the peace for the said county, in LANGBRIDGE. the presence and hearing of Harriet Langbridge, late of Moretonhampstead, in the said county, wife of John Langbridge of the of deposition- same place, labourer, who is now charged before me for obtaining Caption. money, and one valuable security for money, from the said Mary Rowe, the money then and there being the money of the said William Squire Rowe, and the said valuable security for money being then and there the property of one Charlotte Rowe. Judgment. It was objected, on behalf of the prisoner, that the charge thus set forth in the said caption, is obtaining money and valuable securities for money, but whether legally or illegally is not stated, and no offence is therefore shown; and that the deposition of Mary Rowe was, consequently, not receivable in evidence. The court, however, received it in evidence, subject to the question whether, under the circumstances, it ought to have been so received. The prisoner was found guilty and sentenced to be transported for seven years, but execution of the sentence was respited until the said question is decided by the judges. There was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, without the deposition of the said Mary Rowe. In this case an application was made (April 30), to allow it to stand over, in order to afford time to instruct counsel to argue, on the part of the prisoner, counsel having been instructed on the part of the prosecution only; but the application being refused, no argument was offered, and the case was considered by the same judges as the two preceding cases. Cur. adv. vult. WILDE, C. J., now delivered the judgment of the court.—The prisoner, in this case, was convicted at the Devon Quarter Sessions for having unlawfully obtained from Mary Rowe a promissory note for 501., under a false pretence; when a case was reserved for the opinion of the judges. (After stating the facts and the form of the caption as above, his lordship proceeded):-Counsel for the prisoner objected to the deposition being read in evidence, on the ground that the title or caption of the examination did not state that the prisoner was charged with unlawfully obtaining the money, or valuable security for money, and that, therefore, no offence was charged, or it was doubtful what the offence charged was; consequently the deposition was inadmissible in evidence. The question reserved for the opinion of the judges was, whether the objection so taken on behalf of the prisoner was a valid objection, and rendered the deposition inadmissible in evidence. The judges are of opinion that the objection was not valid, and that the deposition was properly received in evidence. The objection is not that the evidence, as set forth in the examination, does not sufficiently appear to relate to the charge upon which the prisoner was being tried, so as to warn and apprise her of the matter to which her cross-examination should be directed, but only that the title of the examination was not a sufficient description of the charge against her. The title of the |