have reference to the materials described in its preamble. The recital is, that materials used in the manufacture before mentioned are frequently found, or are known to be concealed, in the possession of persons who have received them, knowing them to have been purloined or embezzled, or of persons not entitled to dispose of the same, and that the discovery and conviction of such purloiners, and embezzlers, buyers and receivers, of such materials is full of difficulty, from the close and clandestine manner in which the offence is committed, and that there is still greater difficulty in proving whose property such materials are, and that it would tend to the discouragement and suppression of such offences in the discovery and conviction were rendered more easy; and reciting, that, by a former act, justices, after the conviction of any offender for purloining and embezzling, or for buying or receiving the same, are authorised to grant warrants for searching the house and other places of the person so convicted, but that no such authority is given before conviction, nor in any other house or place except such as belongs to a person before convicted; then the enactment follows, authorising two justices, upon complaint on oath, or on affirmation by a Quaker, that there is cause to suspect that any such purloined or embezzled materials are concealed in any dwelling-house, &c., by a warrant under seal, to cause every such dwelling-house, &c. to be searched in the daytime; then the misdemeanour is created, and if any such materials suspected to be purloined or embezzled shall be found therein, to cause the same, and the person or persons in whose custody they are found, to be brought before two justices, and if the said person shall not give an accurate account to such justices how he came by the same, then he is to be punished.

The word "such" is supposed to incorporate in the description of the materials found all the preceding

1845.

THE QUEEN

v.

WILCOCK.

1845.

THE QUEEN

บ.

WILCOCK.

particulars, or at least the fact of their being concealed in the dwelling-house where they are found, but we think this is not the true construction. "Such" does not appear to be applied to the circumstances, but to the nature of the article. It is not "so found," or "found upon such search," nor "found concealed," nor is there any reason why that limitation should be imposed, either by the legislature, or by any judicial interpretation of the statute. The preamble recites the mischief, and, moreover, gives some additional powers for preventing it; but the offence meant to be put down is the possession of goods suspected to have been purloined, without being able to give a satisfactory account of them. The difficulties which have protected suspicious goods from seizure induced the legislature to provide a penalty against all in whose possession they might be found, without explanation how they were come by, and the primâ facie case is equally made out, whether they are found in possession in the course of an unexpected visit, or by virtue of a search-warrant. This was the view taken by the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, at Gloucester, in the year 1833 (a), and we think it perfectly correct. The concealment is merely evidence, and by no means essential to the definition of the offence.

Secondly, whether the penalty is properly distributed by the adjudication, is assumed to depend on the question, whether the act first alluded to was in those particulars repealed by the 58 Geo. 3, c. 51, s. 3, which repeals "An act passed in the 13th year of George the 3rd, intituled, An Act" &c., and here is set out the title of 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, not that of any act passed in the 13 Geo. 3, nor, we presume, of any other act whatsoA mistake has been committed by the legisla

ever.

(a) See Davis v. Nest, 6 Car, & P. 167.

ture in the title of this statute, but, having referred to

1845.

v.

WILCOCK.

the subject-matter, and looking to the mere contents of THE QUEEN the act itself, we cannot but find that the intention was to repeal the 17 Geo. 3, and we think that the incorrect year must be rejected.

The third objection, arising from the information having been before different justices from those who convicted, is certainly not removed by the 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, because the fact of such difference is not recited in the conviction, as required by that act. The 3 Geo. 4 must be taken generally. If the latter part of the 2nd section, the part on which this turns, were confined in its operation to the case provided for in the former part, the commencement, that is, of a proceeding by one justice where two are necessary for the hearing and conviction, there is no reason why the words "or justices should have been introduced. It clearly contemplated an information laid before two justices. There we have the words as general as may be, and a provision, the application of which is as reasonable where two have received the information and two others have heard the evidence, as where one only has commenced the proceeding.

For this objection we think that the conviction was bad.

Order of sessions confirmed.

END OF EASTER VACATION.

INDEX

TO THE

PRINCIPAL MATTERS.