2. Malicious Injuries to Manufactures, Machinery, &c. Destroying, Silk, Woollen, Linen, or Cotton Goods in the Loom, &c. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord —, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously, did cut, break, and destroy, ["cut, break, or destroy, or damage with intent to destroy or render useless"] twenty-five yards of woollen cloth ["any goods or articles of silk, woollen, linen, or cotton, or of any one or more of those materials mixed with each other, or mixed with any other material,—or any framework-knitted piece, stocking, hose, or lace,"] of the goods and chattels of C. D., then being in a certain loom ["in the loom or frame, or on any machine or engine, or on the rack or tenters, or in any stage, process, or progress of manufacture"]: 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. Felony; transportation for life, or not less than seven years; or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 27] for not more than four years, and if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice, publicly or privately whipped, if the court think fit. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 30, s. 3. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. That the prisoner cut, broke, or destroyed, &c., the goods mentioned in the indictment, or some part of them, and that they were the property, absolute or special, of C. D. The value is immaterial. 2. That it was done maliciously. But if it be proved that the defendant wilfully did it, the jury may thence presume that he did it maliciously, unless the contrary be shown on the part of the prisoner. It is not necessary in this case, or in any other case under this statute, to prove the offence to have been committed out of malice to the prosecutor; for by sect. 25, the punishments imposed by this statute for offences, 'shall equally apply and be enforced, whether the offence shall be committed from malice conceived against the owner of the property in respect of which it shall be committed, or otherwise." 3. That the goods were at the time in a loom, or in other process of manufacture, as stated in the indictment. And they are considered to be under the protection of the statute, until they are completely finished for sale. R. v. Woodhead, 1 Mo. & R. 549. 4. If the offence charged, be a damaging of the goods with intent to destroy them, the intent must be proved from circumstances, if it cannot be implied from the act done. Breaking or Destroying Warps of Silk, Cotton, &c., or certain Machinery. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord , unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously did cut, break, and destroy [" cut, break, or destroy, or damage with intent to destroy or render useless"] a certain warp of silk [" any warp or shute of silk, woollen, linen, or cotton, or of any one or more of those materials mixed with each other, or mixed with any other material,— or any loom, frame, machine, engine, rack, tackle, or implement (whether fixed or movable) prepared for or employed in carding, spinning, throwing, weaving, fulling, shearing, or otherwise manufacturing or preparing any such goods or articles"] of the goods and chattels of C. D.: 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. Felony; transportation for life, or not less than seven years; or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 27] for not more than four years, and if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped, if the court think fit. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 30, s. 3. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. That the prisoner cut, broke, or destroyed, &c., the warp of silk mentioned in the indictment, and that it was the pro perty, absolute or special, of C. D. The value is immaterial. As to the damaging of machinery, &c.,-where the prisoner and others unfastened and took away a certain part of a stocking frame called the half jack, without which the frame could not be worked: the judges held this to be a damaging of the frame, although the parties did no injury to the half jack, nor to the frame itself, otherwise than by separating the half jack from it, and replacing the latter would again make the frame perfect. R. v. Tacey, R. & Ry. 452. And the machinery broke or damaged, must be proved to be employed in carding, spinning, weaving, &c. ; but these words "employed in carding," &c., are applicable only to the machinery mentioned in the Act, and do not override the previous words, 66 warp or shute," &c. R. v. Ashton, 1 B. § Ad.750. 2. That it was done maliciously, as in the last case. 3. If the offence charged, be the damaging of the warp, &c., with intent to destroy it or render it useless, the intent must be proved from circumstances, if it cannot be implied from the act done. Entering a Building by Force, with intent to Commit either of the two last-mentioned Offences. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their day of, to wit. Soath present, that A. B., on the in the year of our Lord feloniously did by force enter a certain house and building ["house, shop, building, or place"] of C. D., in the parish of in the county of with intent then and there [unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously to cut, break, and destroy twenty-five yards of woollen cloth, of the goods and chattels of C. D., then being in a certain loom there,-describing the offence intended, in the same manner as in one or other of the last two forms]: 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. Felony; transportation for life, or not less than seven years; or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 27] for not more than four years, and if a male,to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped, if the court think fit. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 30, s. 3. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. That the prisoner entered the building mentioned in the indictment, with force; and that the building at the time was in the occupation of C. D.; and situate as described. 2. Circumstances from which the jury may infer that he entered it, with the intent charged in the indictment. See the evidence in the last two cases. Destroying Machines in other Manufactures, Threshing Machines, &c. Indictment, The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord -, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously did cut, break, and destroy [" cut, break, or destroy, or damage with intent to destroy or render useless"] a certain threshing machine [or a certain machine employed in the manufacture of "any threshing machine, or any machine or engine, prepared for or employed in any manufacture whatsoever, except the manufacture of silk, woollen, linen, or cotton goods, or goods of any one or more of those materials mixed with each other or mixed with any other material, or any frame work-knitted piece, stocking, hose, or lace"], the property of C. D.: 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. Felony; transportation for seven years;-or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 27] for not more than two years, and if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped, if the court think fit. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 30, s. 4. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. That the prisoner cut, broke, or destroyed the machine described in the indictment, and that it was, at the time, the property, absolute or special, of C. D. Where it appeared that the prosecutor, fearing that a mob would come to his farm to destroy his threshing machine, had it taken to pieces, and the mob afterwards came and destroyed the several pieces of it: Park, J., held the offence to be complete, within the meaning of the statute, and said that the point had already been so decided. R. v. Mackerel, 4 Car. & P. 448. And where a threshing machine was worked by a water-wheel, which was used for that purpose only, and the owner, fearing that the mob would destroy his threshing machine, took it down, leaving only the water-wheel standing, which was afterwards broken by the prisoners and others: being indicted for breaking and damaging the machine, Park, J., and Bolland, B., held, that as this water-wheel was part of the machine, proof of these facts was sufficient to maintain the indictment. R. v. Fidler et al., 4 Car. § P. 449. See also Tacey's case, ante, p. 500. 2. That it was done maliciously. If it be proved that the prisoner wilfully did it, the jury may thence presume that he did it maliciously. Where it appeared that a mob came to a farm, and broke a threshing machine, that the prisoner was one of the mob, and that he gave the threshing machine a blow with a sledge hammer: Patteson, J., allowed the prisoner's counsel to ask the witnesses for the prosecution, in cross-examination, whether the mob had not compelled several persons to join them, and whether they had not compelled each person to give one blow to every machine they broke; he also allowed the prisoner's witnesses to prove, not only that he had been forced by the mob to join them, but that he and another had resolved to escape from the mob on the first opportunity. R. v. Crutchley, 5 Car. & P. 133. See ante, p. 10. 3. If the offence charged be a damaging of the machine, with intent to destroy it or render it useless, the intent must be proved from circumstances, if it cannot sufficiently be implied from the act done. 3. Malicious Injuries to Farm produce, Trees, &c. to wit. Setting fire to Crops of Corn, Plantations, &c. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord -, unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously did set fire to a crop of wheat, to wit, five acres of |