Page images
PDF
EPUB

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE ERLE.

1848.

REGINA V. JOAN BLEASDALE.

THE prisoner was indicted under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 10, s. 37, for stealing from the mine of one Henry John Gunning coal, the property of the said H. J. Gunning: and, in the same count, he was charged with stealing from the mines of thirty other proprietors other coal, the property of each of such proprietors. There were also counts charging him with the severing of coal with intent to steal, and with common larceny; and in each count the coal was charged as being the property of the said H. J. Gunning; and also as being the property of the said thirty other separate and distinct owners.

It appeared, that the prisoner had been the lessee, under Captain Walmsley, of a coal mine at Wigan, in the county of Lancaster, which he had been working from November, 1842, till January, 1848; and

J. Pollock, for the prosecution, in opening the case, stated, that the prisoner had, from the shaft opened to work this mine, carried on extensive workings of coal by means of levels, drift-ways, tunnels, cuttings, and drains. And that, by means of these workings, he had gotten coal belonging to about forty different proprietors, without their sanction or knowledge; and, in doing so, had undermined part of the yard of the parish-church, 144 yards of the main street of Wigan, and 220 private-houses; and that he had thus unlawfully possessed himself of 10,000l. worth of the coal of other persons.

Dec. 20th.

If a man does, by means of agent, an act

an innocent

which amounts

to a felony, the employer, and not the agent, is accountable for

that act.

Where a prisoner was in

dicted in one

count, for steal

ing from the mine of one H.

J. G. coal, the
property of the
said H. J. G.,
and, in the
stealing from
same count, for
the mines of

thirty other pro-
prietors coal,
the property of

each of such
other proprie-
tors, and it ap-

peared that all

the coal so al

leged to have been stolen had

been raised at

one shaft :-Held, First,

that the prosecutor could not to elect, on

be called upon

which charge

he would go to
the jury.
Secondly, that
although, for
the sake of con-
venience in try-

James (Monk with him) for the prisoner. I submit that ing the prison

er, the judge might direct

the jury to confine their attention to one particular charge, yet that the prosecutor was entitled to give evidence in support of all the charges laid in the indictment.

Thirdly, that proof of such charges might be relied on, in order to shew a felonious intent.

1848.

REGINA

v.

BLEASDALE.

it is not competent for the counsel for the prosecution to proceed, under this indictment, for felonies so entirely distinct. Each separate severance and removal of coal is a separate and distinct felony. One of such felonies may, according to the opening, have been committed upwards of four years before another of them-may have been effected by means of different workmen, and under the superintendence of different agents. Each severance and removal of coal being a felony, there are, in fact, thirtyone distinct felonies charged in each count; and, if no restraint be put on the prosecution, there will be laid before the jury, under this indictment, and the prisoner will have to answer, evidence relating to many thousands of separate felonies. The hardship on the prisoner is manifest. What would be an unanswerable defence to one charge, may be wholly inapplicable to another, and every defence may require, for proof, a different set of witnesses. How can the prisoner be expected to explain all these separate transactions on one trial? or how, if evidence to answer each particular act of trespass be called, can its application be shewn, and its effect made intelligible to the jury. This case is distinguishable from Rex v. Ellis (a). He cited Rex v. Birdseye (b).

J. Pollock, contrà, was stopped by

ERLE, J.-The question is, what, in such a case as this, is one entire transaction. It may be, that the making a level, a tunnel, a drain, and a cutting, may all be necessary in order to take particular coal; if so, all would, I think, be part of one transaction, and might properly be given in evidence. I cannot interfere at present.

The evidence for the prosecution was then given. It extended to all the operations mentioned in the opening of

[blocks in formation]

the case: to the getting of coal continuously during a period of upwards of four years, to operations conducted by different underlookers and by many different workmen, and to coals taken from the coal-fields of thirty or forty different owners. On the case for the prosecution being

closed,

James applied to know upon which charge the counsel for the prosecution would elect to go to the jury.

J. Pollock having declined to elect, unless directed by his Lordship so to do

ERLE, J., said I will not so direct; but, for convenience' sake, Mr. James may address himself to the charge of stealing the coal taken under the church-yard. The whole workings may be relied on to shew the felonious intent, though they go into twenty different counties.

Monk. And into the separate properties of twenty different persons?

ERLE, J.-Yes.

Monk-And extend over fifteen or twenty years?

ERLE, J.-Yes, if the mining operations be continuous for that time.

James having addressed the jury—

ERLE, J., in summing up, said:-The remarkable part of this case is, the extent of the property taken; and it has been urged that the taking of each day was a separate felony, and that only one felony could be inquired into by you on this indictment. But I should say, that, as long as coal was gotten from one shaft, it was one continuous

1848.

REGINA

v.

BLEASDALE.

1848.

REGINA

v.

BLEASDALE.

taking, though the working was carried on by means of different levels and cuttings, and into the lands of different people. As, however, complaint was made by the counsel for the prisoner, I have thought it better that your attention should be confined to the charge of taking the coal of one owner. But, in order to shew that, when the prisoner took the coal of Mr. Gunning in No. 10 Drift, he knew he was out of his boundary, I have permitted it to be proved, that he has gone out of his boundary in many other instances, and into the property of many other persons, taking in all 15,000 yards of coal. The prisoner did not, by his own hand, pick or remove the coal: but if a man does, by means of an innocent agent, an act which amounts to a felony, the employer, and not the innocent agent, is the person accountable for that act.

The prisoner was convicted.

Joseph Pollock and Wheeler, for the prosecution.

Edward James and Monk, for the prisoner.

[Attornies-Ackerley & Mayhew, and Hilton.]

[blocks in formation]

Semble, that
ment made by
a prisoner in
the presence of,
and duly signed
by, the commit-

before a state

THE prisoner was indicted for stabbing, with intent, &c. It appeared, that, immediately after the witnesses in support of the charge had been examined before the committing magistrate, the prisoner had tendered to the magistrate a statement in writing, signed by himself, admitting his guilt. The statement so tendered was received by the magistrate; and, after being signed by him, was appended against him,

to a caption, which was in the following form:

"The said R. H., the before-named prisoner, charged before me the undersigned, one of the mentioned justices of the peace, this

,

day of

ting magistrate,

can be received in evidence

proof must be given that he was cautioned in the manner provided by the 11 & 12 Vict.

c. 42, s. 18,

stands

before

dehors any de

[blocks in formation]

And

[blocks in formation]

R. H.,

itself.

for that the said (statement of the charge). the said charge being now read over to the said and the witnesses for the prosecution having been severally examined in his presence, the said R. H. is now addressed by me as follows:

[ocr errors]

'Having heard the evidence, do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything, unless you desire to do so; but whatever you say will be taken down in writing, and may be given in evidence against you upon your trial. And you are also clearly to understand, that you have nothing to hope

effect, contained

« PreviousContinue »