1843. HERTFORD SUMMER ASSIZES, 1843. BEFORE BARON PARKE. A. was indicted for administering poison to B., with intent to murder her. A. took a tea- REGINA v. MARY ANNE DRAPER. INDICTMENT TMENT on the stat. 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 11.-The first count of the indictment charged that the prisoner, on the 2nd of April, 1843, did administer to Mary Day a certain deadly poison, called oxalic acid, with intent to murder her. It appeared that, on the night of Saturday, the 1st of April, 1843, Mrs. Day had accused the prisoner, who was to a cup of the her servant, of stealing a table-cloth; and that, it being Mrs. Day's custom to take her breakfast in bed, the pri helped herself tea which con tained the poison. The jury found A. guilty of administering the poison, but not with intent to murder : soner, on the morning of Sunday, the 2nd of April, brought to her, into her bed-room, the tea-pot and a cup and saucer, and there left them, and went down stairs; and that, on Mrs. Day having helped herself to some of the tea Held, that the offence of admi- from the tea-pot, she found that it had an acid taste, and, nistering poison in this manner, on its being analysed, it was found to contain oxalic acid. with intent to murder, was not one in crime charged" Dowling, Serjt., for the prisoner, addressed the jury, and contended that there was no sufficient proof of an intent to murder. The jury found the prisoner "Guilty of administering the poison, but not with intent to murder." PARKE, B.-That is tantamount to a verdict of Not guilty. Ryland and Lydekker, for the prosecution, submitted that the prisoner might be convicted of an assault, under the 11th section of the stat. 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85 (a), and cited the case of Regina v. Bullock (b). PARKE, B., (having conferred with TINDAL, C. J.)—We are of opinion that the offence of administering poison in this manner, with intent to murder, is not one in which "the crime charged" includes an assault. Verdict-Not guilty. Ryland and Lydekker, for the prosecution. Dowling, Serjt., for the prisoner. 1843. REGINA V. DRAPER. ASSUMPSIT by the plaintiff as indorsee against the defendant as the acceptor of a bill of exchange, dated the 8th of March, 1838, for £100, drawn by John Hart, alleged to be accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by John Hart to the plaintiff. Pleas, first, a denial of the acceptance; and second, the discharge of the defendant under the Insolvent Debtors' Act. The bill was accepted by the defendant in the ordinary form, by his writing across it the word "accepted," and his name; but it was directed at the foot, not to the defendant, but "To Mr. John Hart." It did not appear who "Mr. John Hart" was, except that the drawer had the same name. VOL. I. N N. P. A bill directed be accepted by anybody, and in blank may be a good bill; but, if directed to a particular person, it cannot be accepted by any other person, except for honour. 1843. DAVIS V. CLARKE. Thesiger, for the defendant, objected that the bill, not being directed to the defendant, could not be accepted by him within the meaning of the issue on the first plea. Petersdorff, for the plaintiff. It does not lie in the defendant's mouth to raise this objection, after taking to the bill, and accepting it in the usual form. He cited the case of Gray v. Milner (a). PARKE, B.-This bill is wrong. A man cannot accept a bill not drawn upon him, except for honour. There was a case in the Exchequer Chamber,-a criminal case,-in which the Judges held, that a bill directed in blank may be accepted by anybody, and be a good bill; but when directed to a particular person, nobody but the person to whom it is directed can accept the bill, except for honour. Petersdorff then applied for leave to amend. PARKE, B.-If I allow an amendment, the cause must stand over to the next assizes, with leave to plead de novo. But you cannot amend with effect, inasmuch as this is evidently not an acceptance for honour. The plaintiff must be called. 1842. WELSH CIRCUIT. GLAMORGANSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES, 1842. BEFORE BARON ROLFE. REGINA V. JOHN HARRIS and EVAN LLOYD. FORGERY.-The first count of the indictment charged the prisoners with having forged a certain warrant for the payment of money, which was in the following words : "Urgant Lodge, Hirwann, 14th March, 42. "As we have had a place which will return more interest on our cash, with good security, the bearers are authorized to apply for the same. In witness whereof we subscribe our names, and affix the seal of our lodge. "N. G. DAVID DAVIES. "V. G. DAVID LLOYD. In the Odd Fellows, Brecon Bank, who had given bers of the club, With intent to defraud David Evans and others. second count, the instrument was called an "order for the payment of money." In other counts the intent was laid to be to defraud David Davies and others. There were also counts for uttering; and also another set of counts, in which the instrument was described as having, in addition, to the names set out above, a seal, containing the words, "Urgant Lodge, Hirwann," encircling two closed hands. It appeared in evidence that David Evans, and four other three officers of to receive the money signed by the club, called noble-grand, vice-grand, and secretary, and sealed with the lodge seal; and Mr. E., who paid the prisoners the money, proved that he would not have done so on the production of the receipts only without this paper. The prisoners were convicted on an indictment for forging and uttering this paper, which in' some of the counts was described as a warrant, and in others as an order for the payment of money; and the fifteen Judges held the conviction right. N 2 1842. REGINA v. HARRIS. persons, carried on business in partnership together, as bankers, under the firm of the Brecon Bank; and it also appeared that David Davies and a number of other persons, including the prisoners, were members of a benefit club, called the Loyal Urgand Lodge of Odd Fellows; and that David Davies held an office in the club, called Noble-Grand; and that David Lloyd held an office in the club called ViceGrand. The funds of the club had been raised by the contributions of the different members; and it further appeared that the club, at different times, deposited two sums of money with the Brecon Bank, the one a sum of £105, and the other a sum of £25, for which sums the bank gave common bankers' receipts; and, by the desire of the depositors, they wrote across the receipts the names of six persons, who were represented to them (the bankers) as being the committee; and the bankers were directed not to pay the money mentioned in the receipts, except to the order of the committee or of the club. The receipts were kept with certain cash belonging to the club, in a box with two locks, the key of one lock being kept by David Davies, as Noble-Grand, and the key of the other lock by an officer called deputy-treasurer. The prisoners got possession of the box and its contents, including the two receipts; and on the 19th of March, 1842, they presented the receipts at the Brecon Bank, together with a paper writing, corresponding exactly with that set out in the indictment, and having a seal affixed also corresponding with that mentioned in the indictment. The letters N.-G. and V.-G. were proved to mean Noble-Grand and Vice-Grand,but the name of the secretary was proved to be William Jones, and not William Lewis; and it was proved that the prisoners, upon producing the receipts and the paper desired to have the £130, and that Mr. Evans, one of the partners of the bank, considering the paper produced to be an authority from the club paid the money to the prisoners. And Mr. Evans further stated, that he should not have paid the money on the receipts alone with |