there was a benefit society, called the Royal Standard Benefit Society, held at the Black Prince Tavern, in Chandos member of a certain society, called the Royal Standard, held at the Black Prince Tavern, in Chandos-street, Covent-garden, in the county of Middlesex, and established in conformity with a certain act of Parliament made and passed in the 10th year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled An act to consolidate and amend the laws relating to friendly societies;' and that the rules, orders, and regulations of the said society were and had been before that time duly confirmed and certified, according to the directions of the said last-mentioned act of Parliament, as amended by a certain other act of Parliament made and passed in a certain session of Parliament held in the fourth and fifth years of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled An act to amend an act of the 10th year of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, to consolidate and amend the laws relating to friendly societies,' and a transcript of which said rules, orders, and regulations of the said society, so confirmed and certified as aforesaid, had been filed with the clerk of the peace in and for the said county of Middlesex, with the rolls of the sessions of the peace of the said last-mentioned county, pursuant to the said act of Parliament lastly above mentioned; and that, by the 24th article of the said rules, orders, and regulations, it was provided, that, should any full free member of the said society have his goods, tools, or other property destroyed by fire, and make a claim on the said society on account thereof, he must produce a certificate signed by two or more respectable householders in the parish or place where the damage or loss was sustained, that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the said fire was not wilfully occasioned by such member; and that, if the property so destroyed was not insured, the society would indemnify him to any amount not exceeding £15, such claim to be authenticated by a solemn declaration before a magistrate. And the jurors, &c. do further present, that, before and at the time of committing the offence hereinafter next mentioned, one Samuel Parminter and others were then and there trustees of the said society, and that the said John Boynes, on the said day and year in this count first mentioned, resided in a certain place called Whitley-street, in the said parish of St. Giles, in the borough of Reading, in the said county of Berks. And the jurors, &c. do further present, that the said John Boynes afterwards, to wit, on &c., at &c., was then and there minded and designing to obtain, from the said Samuel Parminter and others, the sum of 27. 18s. claimed by the said John Boynes to be justly due and payable to him as such full free member of the said society, for and in respect of a certain loss of certain furniture and property of him, the said John Boynes, by fire, which he, the said John Boynes, had falsely alleged in writing that he had sustained; and that it thereupon became and was material and necessary 1843. REGINA v. BOYNES. 1843. REGINA v. BOYNES. street, Covent-garden; and that, by the 24th rule of that society, it was declared, that, if any full free member of for the said John Boynes, in the further prosecution of his said design, to confirm and authenticate his aforesaid declaration and pretended claim, by making a solemn declaration before one of her Majesty's justices of the peace, competent by law to take and receive the same. And the jurors, &c. do further present, that the said John Boynes afterwards, to wit, on &c., at &c., did go before one Samuel Chase, Esq., then and there being mayor of the said borough of Reading, in the county aforesaid, and then and there being one of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said borough; and did then and there, and within the said borough, voluntarily make and subscribe a declaration before the said Samuel Chase, he the said Samuel Chase then and there being within the said borough, and having sufficient and competent authority to take and receive within the same such declaration so voluntarily made by the said John Boynes in that behalf, according to the form in the schedule annexed to a certain act of Parliament made and passed in the session of Parliament held in the fifth and sixth years of the reign of his late Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled An act to repeal an act of the present session of Parliament,' [setting out the title of the stat. 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 62]; and that the said John Boynes then and there, by his said declaration so then and there made by him within the said borough of Reading, under and by virtue of the said last-mentioned act of Parliament, did solemnly declare, among other things, before the said Samuel Chase, then and there having such sufficient and competent authority as aforesaid, in substance and to the effect following; that is to say, that he, the said John Boynes, was a member of the said society so held at the Black Prince Tavern, Chandos-street, Covent-garden, in the county of Middlesex as aforesaid; and that he, the said John Boynes, had sustained a loss of various articles of furniture, and other property, by a fire which accidentally broke out in his dwellinghouse, situate in Whitley-street, in the said parish of St. Giles, in the said borough of Reading, on the 8th day of October then next preceding, to the amount of 27. 18s.; and that he, the said John Boynes, had forwarded to the said society a certificate, as required by the 24th article of the rules of the said society, hereinbefore recited; and so the said jurors do further present, that the said John Boynes did then and there, wilfully and corruptly, make and subscribe the said declaration, knowing the same to be untrue in this material particular following, that is to say, well knowing in truth and in fact that he, the said John Boynes, had not sustained the loss of any furniture, or any property, by any such fire as in his said declaration was mentioned, to the aforesaid amount of 21. 188., or to any other amount whatever, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity." that society should have his goods or other property destroyed by fire, and a claim was made on the society in respect of it, he should produce a certificate, signed by two or more respectable householders in the place where the loss was sustained, that, to the best of their belief, the fire was not wilfully occasioned by such member; and, if not insured, the society would indemnify him to any amount not exceeding £15, such claim to be authenticated by a solemn declaration made before a magistrate. The defendant was a full free member of this society, and, on the 19th of October, 1842, he sent a letter, stating that his goods had been destroyed by fire, and inclosing two papers, the one purporting to be a claim for 127. 18s., the amount of his loss, with a certificate signed by five persons verifying it; the other being a solemn declaration, made under the stat. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62, s. 18, before Mr. Chase, the mayor of Reading, stating that he had sustained a loss by fire, which occurred at his house on the 8th of October, to the amount of 127. 18s. It would be proved that there had been no fire at all at his house, and that the solemn declaration, which had originally stated the loss to be 27. 18s., had been altered to 127. 18s.; and it would be also proved that all the signatures to the certificate were forgeries. On the part of the prosecution, Mr. James Hunter was called. He said, "I am secretary to the Royal Standard Society. I produce a copy of the rules of the society. I went to the clerk of the peace's office of the county of Middlesex, and I saw the transcript of the rules of the society, which is there enrolled. I examined that transcript with the copy of the rules I now produce." In his cross-examination he said, "I only examined the 24th rule as contained in my copy with the transcript at the clerk of the peace's office. I did not compare my copy of the other rules with the transcript." Carrington, for the prisoner.-I submit that this is not 1843. REGINA v. BOYNES. 1843. REGINA v. BOYNES. an examined copy of the transcript of the rules enrolled. with the clerk of the peace, as the witness has not compared the whole of the rules contained in his copy with the transcript. An examined copy ought to be an examined copy of the whole document, except in the case of a parish register or the like, when the single entry is in effect the whole document so far as it relates to the subject matter in question. In the present case it may well be that some of the other rules may control the effect of the 24th rule, which the witness examined. ERSKINE, J.-I think that the whole ought to have been compared by the witness. To prove the transcript of the rules, either the original transcript should have been produced from the clerk of the peace's office, or an examined copy of the whole of it, which this is not. The evidence was rejected (a). Tyrwhitt, for the prosecution.-I submit that the indictment is sufficient, even without the allegations as to the society. Carrington.-Does your lordship think that the stat. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62, s. 18, extends to any declarations except those mentioned in the preamble to that section, and those relating to matters ejusdem generis? ERSKINE, J.-The 18th section of the stat. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 62, is not confined to cases of voluntary declarations with respect to the "confirmation of written instruments or allegations, or proof of debts, or the execution of deeds or other matters" mentioned in the preamble, which might perhaps mean matters ejusdem generis, but it extends to declarations generally (b). If there is enough on the face (a) See the case of Reg. v. Christian, Carr. & M. 388. (b) As to the enacting part of a statute not being limited or re strained by the preamble, see the cases of Reg. v. Marks, 3 Ea. 157; Rex v. Brodribb, 6 C. & P. 571; and Rex v. Lovelass, id. 596. of this indictment to shew that an offence was committed without any reference to the society or to its rules, that will be sufficient; and I think that that is so; and utile per inutile non vitiatur. Carrington.-Every count in the indictment refers to this society, and avers that the society had certain rules. ERSKINE, J.-But all that may be rejected as surplusage, if the indictment would be sufficient without it. The offence of the present defendant would be equally within the act, if no such society had ever existed. Mr. Hunter produced and put in a letter which he received from the prisoner, stating a loss by fire to the amount of 127. 18s., and what purported to be a certificate signed by five persons who lived near him, certifying that, to the best of their belief, the fire was accidental. It was proved by Mr. Wells, the assistant clerk to the magistrates, that he wrote the declaration, which was made in his presence by the defendant before the mayor, and that the sum then mentioned in it was 27. 18s.; but that the word "two" had been afterwards blotted and altered to look like "twelve," and the figures" £12 18s. Od." added at the bottom of the paper. The declaration was put in; it was as follows: "I, John Boynes, do solemnly and sincerely declare that I am a member of the Royal Standard Benefit Society, held at the Black Prince Tavern, Chandos-street, Coventgarden, in the county of Middlesex, that I have sustained a loss of various articles of furniture and other property by a fire, which accidentally broke out in my dwellinghouse, situate in Whitley-street, in the parish of St. Giles, in the borough of Reading, on the 8th day of October instant, to the amount of twelve pounds and eighteen shillings. And I do declare that I have forwarded to the said 1843. REGINA v. BOYNES. |