1849. WESTERN SPRING CIRCUIT, 1849. SOMERSETSHIRE ASSIZES. BEFORE LORD DENMAN, C. J. EXAMINATION OF PRISONER'S WITNESSES BEFORE MAGIS TRATES. AT the Taunton Assizes, April 2nd, 1849, Lord DENMAN, C. J., in his charge to the Grand Jury, said: "In all cases in which prisoners charged with felony have witnesses, and those witnesses are in attendance at the time of the examination before the magistrate, I should recommend that the magistrate should hear the evidence of such witnesses as the prisoner, on being asked, wishes to be examined in his defence. If such witnesses merely explain what has been proved in support of the charge, and are believed, they will actually have made out a defence on behalf of the accused, and there would of course be no necessity for any further proceedings; but if the witnesses so called contradict those for the prosecution in material points, then the case would be properly sent to a jury to ascertain the truth of the statements of each party; and the depositions of the prisoner's witnesses being taken and signed by them, should be transmitted to the judge, together with the depositions in support of the charge." Where a prisoner, charged witnesses in at with felony, has tendance at the time of the ex amination be fore the magistrate, Lord Denman, C. J., recommended that they should be then examined if the prisoner wishes it; and if their evi dence is be lieved, and an swers the charge, no further proceed ings need be taken. But if these witnesses contradict those for the prosecu tion in material should be sent points, the case to a jury, and the depositions of the prisoner's witnesses should be taken and signed by them, and transmitted to the judge, together with the depositions in support of the charge. 1849. The wilful taking of a fafse oath before a surrogate, to ob it is not essential to this offence that any marriage should have taken place, or that the defendant ever intended to marry. Whether this offence amounts REGINA V. JOHN MATTOCKS CHAPMAN. FALSE oath. The first count of the indictment stated, that William James, clerk, was a surrogate for the diocese tain a marriage of Bath and Wells, having authority to grant licences for licence, is a mismarriages therein; and that the defendant applied to him to grant a licence for the solemnization of a marriage at the parish of Wilton, between Joseph Baker and Sarah Fry; and that the defendant, unlawfully intending to deceive the said W. James, as such surrogate, to obtain from him such licence, in fraud and violation of the provisions of the stat. 4 Geo. 4, c. 19 [setting out the title of the Act], did, for the purpose of obtaining from the said W. James, as such surrogate as aforesaid, such licence as aforesaid, wilfully, &c., produce before the said W. James, an affidavit in writing, and before the said W. James (he having lawful and competent power, &c.) was sworn, and being so sworn, did in and by the said affidavit depose and swear, that his name was Joseph Baker, that he was the deponent, at a widower, and a yeoman; and that Sarah Fry had had ment of it, is a her usual place of abode in the said parish of Wilton, for swcars-quare. fifteen days then last, whereas in truth and in fact, &c., count of an in- [here followed allegations negativing each of these stateswearing falsely ments, and an allegation that the defendant did obtain from the said W. James a licence for the marriage of demeanour, by an act done, is punishable as a misdemeanour. Whether, in an affidavit, the description of the commence part of what he But if, in a dictment for before a surro- Joseph Baker and Sarah Fry, the said W. James then believing the oath of the defendant to be true.] The second count was similar to the first, but did not state the false swearing to be in an affidavit. The third count stated that W. James was a surrogate, and that the defendant applied in an affidavit), to him for a marriage licence, for the marriage at Wilton of Joseph Baker and Sarah Fry; and that he, forthe purpose of obtaining such licence, was sworn, and took his oath, and swearing to be proof of the false swearing as to any one of the other things will sus did, for the purpose of obtaining the licence, falsely, &c., swear that his name was Joseph Baker, &c., as in the first tain the count. count. This count also contained allegations negativing these statements, and an allegation that he obtained the licence, as in the first count (a). The fourth count was (a) The third count of the indictment was in the following form: Third Count.]-And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at the city of Wells aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and in the diocese of Bath and Wells, the said William James clerk, then and there was a surrogate for the said diocese of Bath and Wells, having authority to grant licences for marriages therein; and that the said John Mattocks Chapman then and there applied to the said William James, then and there being such surrogate as aforesaid, to grant a licence for the solemnization of a marriage at the parish of Wilton in the said county and diocese, between the said Joseph Baker and the said Sarah Fry; and that the said John Mattocks Chapman unlawfully contriving and intending to obtain from the said William James, as such surrogate, such licence for the said marriage, in fraud and violation of the provisions of an Act of Parliament passed in the fourth year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled "An Act for amending the Laws respecting the Solemnization of Marriages in England," for the purpose of obtaining from the said William James, as such surrogate as aforesaid, such licence for marriage as aforesaid, then and there, before the said William James, as such surrogate as aforesaid, in due form of law was sworn, and took his corporal oath upon the Holy Gospel of God; and that the said John Mattocks Chapman, being so sworn as aforesaid before the said William James, as such surrogate as aforesaid, he, the said William James, then and there having a lawful and competent power and authority, as such surrogate, to administer the said oath to the said John Mattocks Chapman, in that behalf did, for the purpose of thereby then and there obtaining such licence for the marriage of the said Joseph Baker with the said Sarah Fry, falsely, corruptly, knowingly, wilfully, fraudulently, and unlawfully, then and there swear, amongst other things, in substance and to the effect following, that is to say, that the name of him the said John Mattocks Chapman was Joseph Baker, and that he, the said John Mattocks Chapman, was one of the parties for whose marriage a licence was then and there applied for, and that he, the said John Mattocks Chapman, was a yeoman; and that he, the said John Mattocks Chapman, was a widower; and that the said Sarah Fry, being the other of the parties for whose marriage a licence was then and there applied for, had had her usual place of abode within the said parish of Wilton, in the county of Somerset, for the space of fifteen days then last past: Whereas, in truth and in fact, the name of the said John Mattocks Chapman was not Joseph Baker; and whereas, in truth and 1849. REGINA บ. CHAPMAN. 1849. REGINA V. CHAPMAN. similar to the third, but omitted the allegation that the licence was obtained. The fifth count was a count for wilful and corrupt perjury; it contained prefatory allegations similar to those in the third count, and stated that the defendant swore as in that count, and assigned perjury on it. It was proved, that the defendant went before the Rev. William James, a surrogate for the diocese of Bath and Wells, to obtain a marriage licence, and that the several facts stated and recited in the affidavit were then taken down from the dictation of the defendant, and the affidavit signed by him; that an oath was then administered by him in the presence of Mr. James, and he was asked if his name was Joseph Baker, and if the signature was his, to which he said "Yes;" that the affidavit was then read to him, and he was asked if the contents of it were true, to which he said they were; that Mr. James then gave him a licence for the marriage of Joseph Baker and Sarah Fry, at Wilton. It was proved that the several statements were all false to the knowledge of the defendant at the time he so dictated them. in fact, the said John Mattocks and unlawfully taken by the said John Mattocks Chapman as aforesaid, the said John Mattocks Chapman did then and there unlawfully obtain from the said William James, so being such surrogate as aforesaid, a licence for the solemnization of a marriage at the parish of Wilton in the said county and diocese, between the said Joseph Baker and the said Sarah Fry, the said William James, at the time he so granted the said licence, believing the said oath of the said John Mattocks Chapman to be true, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. The affidavit was in the following form, and bore a 2s. 6d. stamp: "Diocese of Bath and Wells. "On the 27th day of July, 1848, appeared personally Joseph Baker, of the parish of Bishop's Hull, in the county of Somerset, ycoman, a widower, and prayed a licence for the solemnization of matrimony in the parish church of Wilton, in the county aforesaid, and diocese of Bath and Wells, between him and Sarah Fry, of the parish of Wilton aforesaid, a spinster, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, and made oath, that he believed that there is no impediment of kindred or alliance or of any other lawful cause, nor any suit commenced in any ecclesiastical court, to bar or hinder the said matrimony, according to the tenor of such licence; and he further made oath, that she had had her usual place of abode within the parish of Wilton aforesaid for the space of fifteen days last past. (Signed) JOSEPH Baker. Sworn before me on the same day. (Signed) W. JAMES, Surrogate." Phinn, for the defendant, objected-First, that the instrument was not in form an affidavit, as it used the words "made oath" instead of "maketh oath." Secondly, that the name of Joseph Baker, and also the residence and designation of yeoman and widower were description, and not assertions. Thirdly, that Mr. James, as a surrogate, had not competent authority to administer the oath. And fourthly, that the indictment described no offence known to the law. Lord DENMAN, C. J., reserved the case for the consideration of the Judges. Fitzherbert, for the prosecution. Phinn, for the defendant. Verdict-Guilty. [Attornies-Pinchard, and Trenchard:] 1849. REGINA CHAPMAN. |