« ZurückWeiter »
CRONSHAW v. WIGAN BURIAL BOARD.
township, under the statutes relating to the burial The said district of St. Thomas does not sepaof the dead as after mentioned, the remains of the rately maintain its own poor, but lies wholly inhabitants of the said borough and township, within the borough and township of Wigan, which and of such of the outlying townships as had has separate overseers of the poor, and separately not burial grounds attached to their respective maintains its own poor. churches, were interred in the churchyard of the In the year 1854, under the provisions of the ancient parish church, and on all such interments various statutes relating to the burial of the dead, within the churchyard of the said ancient parish, a burial board for the borough and township of a burial fee was payable by the custom of the said Wigan was duly established, and the said board parish; and the rector of the said ancient parish afterwards duly provided under the said statutes was alone authorised and entitled to perform the a burial ground for the said borough and town. rite of burial, and to receive the fees as aforesaid ship. in respect thereof.
In the year 1856, the churchyard of the ancient In the year 1851, the Church of St. Thomas parish church of Wigan was closed by the order was built and consecrated in the said borough and of one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. The township of Wigan as a chapel of ease under the burial ground so provided by the burial board, provisions of the statutes 43 Geo. 3, c. 108; was, with a chapel erected thereon, on or about the 58 Geo. 3, c. 45; and 59 Geo. 3, c. 134. A copy of 13th Aug. 1856, duly consecrated; from which the sentence of consecration bearing date the 1st time it became the burial ground for the said Oct. 1851 is intended, if necessary, to form part of borough and township of Wigan, within the mean. this case.
ing, and according to the provisions of the said The plaintiff was appointed incumbent of the last mentioned statutes. said church of St. Thomas on the 25th March The said district of St. Thomas contributed to 1854.
the rates, out of which the said last mentioned By an order of Her Majesty in Council made on burial ground was provided. At the time when the 11th Feb. 1852, upon the recommendation of the said last mentioned burial ground was so prothe Commissioners for Building new Churches, vided and consecrated as aforesaid, the Rev. Henry under the 16th section of the said statute John Gunning was rector of the ancient parish of 59 Geo. 3, c. 134, and under and by virtue of any Wigan, but on his resignation the Hon. and other power or authority in that behalf, vested in Rev. George Thomas Orlando Bridgeman was on Her Majesty and the said commissioners, a par- the 22nd Oct. 1864, instituted and inducted to ticular district was duly assigned to the said the rectory of Wigan, and has since continued to church of St. Thomas, and the said order in be rector of the said parish. council authorised banns of matrimony to be pub- The plaintiff, as incumbent of the district of St. lished, and marriages, baptisms, churchings, and Thomas, has since the avoidance of the rectory of burials to be solemnised and performed in the said Wigan next after the passing of the New Parishes church of St. Thomas, and directed that the fees to Act 1856, claimed under the statute 20 & 21 Vict. arise therefrom should be paid and belong to the c. 81, s. 5, to he entitled to perform, and has incumbent of such church for the time being. A offered to perform, the religious service in the description of the bounds of the said district so burials in the burial ground so provided by the assigned was also then duly enrolled in the High said burial board, of the remains of the parishioners Court of Chancery, and registered in the office of or inhabitants of the said district of St. Thomas, the registry of the diocese, as required by the and also to be entitled to receive the same fees in statutes in that behalf, and a copy of the said respect of such burials, as if the said burial ground order and of the said description of the boundaries were exclusively the burial ground of the said so assigned as aforesaid was inserted in the London district of St. Thomas. Gazette, on the 24th Feb. 1852. A copy of this From the 24th Feb. 1868, until the 10th Sept. order in council is to be taken, if necessary, as 1869, the defendants allowed the plaintiff to perpart of this case.
form the religious service in the chapel, in the deThe plaintiff contends that from and after the fendants' said burial ground, of the remains of the passing of the New Parishes Act, 1856 (19 & 20 parishioners and inhabitants of the said district of Vict. c. 104), s. 14, the said district so assigned as St. Thomas, and paid to him the fees arising from aforesaid to the said church of St. Thomas, became the said burials, but since the last-mentioned date a separate and distinct parish for ecclesiastical the defendants, in consequence of a claim to the purposes, such as is contemplated in the 15th sec- same fees being made by the rector of Wigan, tion of the New Parishes Act 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. have refused to allow the plaintiff to perform any c. 37), but as this is not admitted by the defendant, such religious service in the defendants' said burial the parties have agreed to call St. Thomas through- grounds,
and have retained the fees arising from out the remainder of this case a “district," with- the burial of the remains of parishioners and inout prejudice to the question which is hereby sub- habitants of the said district of St. Thomas, until mitted to the decision of the court.
it shall be determined by the court whether the There has never been any burying ground be- plaintiff or the rector of Wigan is entitled to relonging to the said district of St. Thomas, nor has ceive them. any vestry or meeting in the nature of a vestry of The court upon the above statement is authorised the said district appointed any burial board or to amend the pleadings if necessary for determin. provided a burial ground as aforesaid, but the re- ing the questions at issue between the parties, and mains of the parishioners and inhabitants thereof to draw any inferences of fact which may be necescontinued to be interred in the burial ground of the sary to the decision of the case in the same manner, ancient parish church, until a burial ground was and as fully as any jury might determine the provided by the defendants for the borough and township of Wigan, under the statutes relating to The questions for the opinion of the court are the burial of the dead as after mentioned.
whether the plaintiff is entitled to perform the
CRONSHAW v. Wigan BURIAL BOARD.
service in the burial of the dead in the defendants' of any new parish not separately maintaining its burial ground, and to receive the fees above own poor, and having no separate burial ground, claimed by him.
may appoint a burial board; upon which such If the court shall be of opinion that the plaintiff vestry and burial board shall have the powers conis entitled to perform such services in the burial, in ferred upon other burial boards by 18 & 19 Vict. the said burial ground provided by the defendants c. 128, provided that the powers of other vestries of the remains of parishioners or inhabitants of and boards shall then determine, so far as they relate the said district of St. Thomas, and to receive fees to the said new parish ; and until a burial ground in respect thereof, then the judgment in this case shall be so provided for any new parish which has shall be entered for the plaintiff for the sum of been created pursuant to 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104, and 71. 168. 6d.
to which the said Act may apply, the incumbent If the court shall be of opinion that the plaintiff of such new parish (if such new parish has contriis not entitled to perform such services, and to buted to rates by which a burial ground has been receive such fees as above claimed by him, then provided) shall perform the same duties and be judgment shall be entered for the defendants. entitled to the same fees with respect to the burial
The costs of the cause, taxed on the higher scale, of his parishioners in the burial ground to which to abide the event.
his new parish has contributed, as if the said burial Manisty, Q.C, (with him Forbes) argued for the ground were exclusively the burial ground of the plaintiff. The question of plaintiff's right to these said new parish. The case finds that this district fees depends upon the 5th section of the Act to has contributed to the rates of the burial ground, amend the Burial Act 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 81); and it remains only to show that this district "The vestry or meeting in the nature of a vestry, is a new parish, which has been created purof any parish, new parish, township, or other suant to 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104, and to which the district not separately maintaining its own poor, said Act may apply. This is commonly called Lord and which has had no separate burial ground, may Blandford's Act, and by sect. 14 it is enacted that appoint a burial board ; and such vestry or “Wheresoever or as soon as banns of matrimony meeting, and the burial board appointed by it, and the solemnization of marriages, churchings, shall exercise and have all the powers which they and baptisms according to the laws and canons in might have exercised and had under the said Acts, force in this realm are authorised to be published and this Act, if such parish, new parish, township, and performed in any consecrated church or or district had had a separate burial ground before chapel to which a district shall belong, such disthe passing of the said Act of the 18th and trict not being at the time of the passing of this 19th years of Her Majesty: provided always, Act a separate and distinct parish for ecclesiastical that all the powers of any other vestry or meet- purposes, and the incumbent of which is by such ing and burial board, if any, shall then cease and authority entitled for his own benefit to the entire determine, so far as relates to such parish, new fees arising from the performance of such offices parish, township, or district as aforesaid; and without any reservation thereout, such district or until a burial ground shall be so provided as afore place shall become and be a separate and distinct said, and consecrated for any new parish or district parish for ecclesiastical purposes, such as is concreated or to be created pursuant to the provisions templated in the 15th section of the first recited of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 94, and 19 & 20 Act* (viz., 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37), and the church or Vict. c. 104, or any or either of them, and to which chapel of such district shall be the church of such the said Acts or any or either of them may apply, parish, and all and singular the provisions of the the incumbent of such new parish or district (if said firstly and secondly recited Acts (the second any burial ground has been or shall be provided is 7 & 8 Vict. c. 94) as amended by this Act under the herein recited Acts for the burial of the relative to new parishes, upon their becoming dead, or any or either of them, for any parish or such, and to the matters and things consequent parishes out of rates to which such new parish or thereon, shall extend and apply to the said parish district, or any part thereof, shall have contributed, and church as fully and effectually as if the same or contribute, or be liable) shall, with respect to had become a new parish under the provisions of the burial in such last-mentioned burial ground of the said last-mentioned Acts.” [Stopped by the the remains of the parishioners or inhabitants of court.] such new parish or district, or of such part thereof Holker, Q.C. (with him McConnell) for the defenas shall have contributed or contribute as aforesaid, dants.-Hornby v. The Burial Board of Tozteth as the case may be, perform the same duties and Park (31 L. J. 643, Ch.) shows that an incumbent have the same rights, privileges, and authorities, who has no burial ground in his district is not and be entitled to the same fees, and also the clerk entitled to burial fees. [Manisty.—That case was and sexton of such new parish or district shall, decided upon statutes before that of 1857.) My when necessary, respectively perform the same construction of the 5th section of that Act is that duties, and be entitled to the same fees, in respect the provision, by which the incumbent is to bare of such burials, as if the said burial ground were fees for burials in a ground to be used partly by exclusively the burial ground of such new parish his district, relates only to the time between the or district, subject, nevertheless, to all provisions to appointment of a burial board and the provision which the incumbents, clerks, and sextons of origi- of a burial ground. Here the case does not find nal parishes are respectively subject in and by the that any burial board has been appointed. Further said Burial Acts, or any or either of them, provided this must be a new parish under Lord Blandford's also that nothing herein contained shall affect the Act 1856, and the description of the district in the rights or privileges of any existing incumbent, case exactly comes within the exception to the 14th clerk, or sexton, without the consent of such section, "such district not being at the time of the incumbent, clerk, or sexton respectively.”. The passing of this Act a separate and distinct parish effect of the involved language of this section, so for ecclesiastical purposes.” Now this was a far as it affects the present case, is, that the vestry | separate and distinct parish under the Order C. Cas. R.]
REG. v. CHAMBERS.
[C. Cas. R
in Council of 1851. Sect. 11 shows that law would have implied a promise on his part to the churches to which Lord Blandfurd's Act pay the money, and so would in effect operate as was intended to apply were those in which an undertaking to pay the money, and as a security it was not lawful to perform the offices of the for its payment; yet it was not in itself either one church. The 5th section of the Act of 1857 applied or other. only to a new parish or district created by one of I reserved the point, and left to the jury whether the Acts mentioned, as well as that to which one the instrument was forged by the prisoner with of them might apply. This district cannot be intent to defraud. said to have been created by either of those Acts, The verdict was guilty. for it is found expressly to have been made by There was a second indictment against the an order in council under statutes of Geo. 3. prisoner on the same facts for a misdemeanor at (LUSH, J.-It could not have been a separate common law for forging and uttering the same parish; for before Lord Blandford's Act it was instrument. necessary to obtain the consent of the patron of a After the first trial he withdrew the plea of not district in order to make it so. The case does not guilty to this indictment, and pleaded guilty to it. so find, and therefore Lord Blandford's Act would I sentenced him to eight months' imprisonment apply to it.] If your Lordships think that this on the indictment for misdemeanor, and to four district was then made new parish, the latter months' imprisonment with hard labour on the part of the 5th section of the Act of 1857 would indictment for felony, the latter sentence not to apply to it; but then arises the question whether come into operation till after the decision of this that section did more than provide for the interval court on the point reserved. between the appointment of a burial board, and The question is whether the instrument in the formation of a burial ground.
question was either an undertaking or a security Manisty was not heard in reply.
within the meaning of the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, The COURT (Cockburn, C.J., Mellor, Lush, and s. 23. (a) Hannen, JJ.] gave judgment for the plaintiff. If that question is answered in the affirmative,
Judgment for the plaintiff. the sentence of imprisonment with hard labour is Attorneys for plaintiff, Bell, Brodrick, and Gray, to come into operation concurrently with the for J. Park, Wiend, Wigan.
residue of the sentence of imprisonment. If Attorneys for defendant, Gregory, Rowcliffe and answered in the negative it is not to come Co., for T. F. Taylor.
No counsel appeared to argue on either side. CROWN CASES RESERVED. Reported by John THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.
KELLY, C.B.—The question in this case is whether the instrument set out in the indictment is an
undertaking or security for the payment of money Saturday, Nov. 11, 1871.
within the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 3, and the for(Before KELLY, C.B., BYLES, J., PIGOTT, B., gery thereof an offence within its provisions. The LUSH, J., and HANNEN, J.)
facts are, that the prisoner having obtained a loan
of 351., and being pressed for payment, obtained Reg. v. CHAMBERS.
further time by giving as a security an IO U for Forgery-IOU-Surety–24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 23. 351., purporting to be signed by himself and his The prisoner, being pressed by a creditor for the brother-in-law, George Wickham.
It was payment of 351. obtained further time by giving an genuine instrument so far as regards his own TO U for 351., signed by himself, and also pur
signature, but the name of George Wickham was porting to to be signed by W. W's name was a forged. I am of opinion that this was clearly a forgery:
security for payment of money within the Act. Held, that the instrument was a security for the pay.
It was said that there was no consideration for the ment of money by W., and that the forgery of his giving of it. That is not so, for there was forbearname was a felony within the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98,
ance obtained from the creditor. And now that 8. 23.
Lord Tenterden's Act is repealed, and there is no CASE reserved for the opinion of this court by necessity for the consideration to appear on the Blackburn, J.
face of the instrument, it would have operated at The prisoner was tried before me on an indict- all events as a guarantee by Wickham for the payment for feloniously forging an instrument which ment of 351. if his name had not been forged. was set out in the indictment in the words and BYLES, J.-Ia am of the same opinion. figures following:
Pigott, B.--I also think that this was a security Nov. 21, 1870.
by Wickham to pay the debt for the prisoner. 10 U thirty-five pounds. £35. ARTHUR CHAMBERS. GEORGE WICKHAM.
(a) This section enacts that, “ Whosoever shall
forge or alter, or shall offer, utter, dispose of, or It was described in one count as an undertaking put off, knowing the same to be forged or altered, for the payment of money, and in another as a any undertaking, warrant, order, authority, or request security.
for the payment of money, or for the delivery or On the trial evidence was given that the prisoner other security for the payment of money, or for procaring
transfer of any goods or chattels, of any note, bill, or having obtained a loan of 351., and being pressed or giving credit, or any indorsement or assignment of any for payment, obtained further time by giving as a such undertaking, warrant, order, authority, or request, security the instrument which purported to be or any accountable receipt, acquittance, or receipt for signed by his brother-in-law, George Wickham.
money, or for goods, or for any note, bill, or other It was objected that though, if the instrument
security for the payment of money, or any indorsement
on, or assignment of any such accountable receipt with had been genuine it - might have been evidence of
intent in any of the cases aforesaid to defraud, shall be an account stated by Wickham, from which the guilty of felony."
C. Cas. R..]
REG. v. KNIGHT.
[C. Cas. R.
LUSH, J.-I think this was a security for the
Bank of England note for 101. The note prodaced by payment of money within the statute. Had this the witness Bailey is the one. I asked prisoner to indorse been the signature of Wickham he would have
it, which he did. "E. Randall," as on the note produced.
I put my initials under his name and gave him change. been bound by it, and it would have been a good The articles produced by witness Tucker are of the same guarantee for the payment of 351. by him, and if description as those I sold to prisoner. I will swear they that is so, the instrument is a security for the pay
are the same. ment of money within the Act.
George Tucker, metropolitan police constable, HANNEN, J. concurred.
53 W. on his oath, stated: Conviction affirmed. I received a communication from the witness Hollyman.
I apprehended the prisoner in the Wandsworth-road.
about 7.15, on Saturday, 24th June. I said to him, I shall REG. v. KNIGHT.
place you under arrest for some illegal proceedings or
transactions in passing a 101. Bank of England note, and Larceny-Lost bank note-Misdirection. a gentleman will charge you at the station. He did not Prisoner received from his wife a 101. Bank of
say anything. I took him to the station. The sergeant England note, which she had found, and passed it
there said to him, “ You are charged with illegally con. away. The note was indorsed E. May” only,
verting this note to your own use." The prisoner said,
“I know nothing about the note.” He gave me his and the prisoner, when asked to put his name and address, 2, Pensbury-street, Wandsworth-road, and gave address on it by the person to whom he passed it, me his latch key to be given to his wife. I took one pair wrote on it a false name and address. When of drawers from the prisoner, and detective Lonsdale charged at the police station, the prisoner said he brought me the waistcoat and other pair of drawers, knew nothing about the note. The jury were
which I now produce. When I apprehended him he said,
“ All right, I will go with you It is wrong in the depodirected that, if they were satisfied that the prisoner sition. I know nothing about it." could within a reasonable time have found the The prisoner's statement before the committing owner, and if, instead of waiting at all
, the prisoner | magistrate was read as follows: immediately converted the note to his own use, My wife found it in Clapham-road on the Oaks-day, intending to deprive the owner of it, it would be from half past four to five, between Manor-street and the larceny. The prisoner was convicted.
Two Brewers. She left it till I came home from work at Held, that the jury ought to have been asked whether
half-past six, and then told me what she had found. I the prisoner, at the time he received the note,
said I did not think it was a good one, but I would take
it to Mr. Hollyman and see if he could change it. I took believed the owner could be found ; and that the it to him and thought no more about it. I had money to conviction was wrong.
pay for the things in my pocket if it had not been all Case reserved for the opinion of this court.
right. I did not come by it by dishonest means. At the general quarter session of the peace, The counsel for the prosecution presented the holden by adjournment at St. Mary, Newington, case to the jury as a larceny of lost property by in and for the county of Surrey, on Wednesday, the finder. the 26th July 1871, William George Green The prisoner's counsel contended there was no Knight was tried and convicted on an indict- evidence to show that the prisoner at the time ment, charging him in the first count with feloni. when the note came into his possession had the ously stealing 101. in money, of the property of intention of wrongfully and feloniously depriving John Willimot Morgan; and, in the second count, the owner of his property, or that he knew or had with feloniously receiving the same money, well any reasonable means of ascertaining to whom the knowing it to have been stolen, upon the follow- note belonged (the only mark on the same when ing evidence :
found being “ E. May,” not the name of the owner), Richard Adye Bailey, clerk in the Bank of Eng. and consequently, upon the authority of Reg. T. land, having been sworn, produced a cancelled note Thurborn (1 Den. *C. C. 388; 3 Cox C. C. of such bank for 101., paid 31st May 1871, No. 453); Reg. v. Moore (30 L. J. 77, M. C. ; 8 Cor 30,483, dated 22nd March 1871, indorsed E. May; C. C. 416); and Reg. v. Glyde (37 L. J. 107, E. Randall, 8, Cowland-terrace, Wandsworth-road ; M. C.; 11 Cox C. C. 103), the prisoner ought G. Hollyman, 345, Wandsworth-road.
to be acquitted, it being laid down that on each of John Willimot Morgan, on his oath, stated as those points (as well as the conversion), there follows:
must be evidence to satisfy the jury. I am traveller and collector. On the 26th May last I The court, however, left the case to the jury, received a 101. note at Deptford, between one and half- telling them that, if they were satisfied that the past one o'clock, indorsed E. May: I put it in my left- prisoner could within a reasonable time have found hand waistcoat pocket. I went to South Bermondsey
the owner, but, instead of waiting at all, he immestation, a quarter of a mile from where I received the note, and thence to Loughborough-park station. I
diately converted the note to his own use by called upon a customer in the Brixton-road. I walked changing it, and that he intended to deprive the from there to Clapham. I got there about three o'clock. owner of the note against his will, it would be It was the Oaks day. I walked along the Clapham-road. larceny, and in considering their verdict it wonld did not take out the note after. I missed it when I the prisoner, viz., that when asked by the person
be right for them to remember the conduct of arrived at the office, Arthur-street, London-bridge. I went from Clapham station to the Borough-road station.
who changed the note to write his name and adI went the same night to Scotland-yard and gave infor. dress on the back of the note, he wrote a false mation to the police. When at Clapham I went down name and a false address, and when charged at High-street to Muswell's the butcher. I came up Acra. lane. I left Clapham at four o'clock by train.
the police station with the offence he said, I know
nothing about the note. George Hollyman, on his oath, stated :
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. I am a clothier, carrying on business at 345, Wands- The court thereupon reserved for the decision of worth-road. On the 26th May last the prisoner came to me between seven and eight o'clock in the evening. I
the Court for Crown Cases Reserved the question kuew him by sight. I did not know his name. He pur.
whether, under the circumstances, the conviction chased a waistcoat, two pairs of drawers, and other was right? things, together of the value of 12s. 9d. He tendered a Judgment upon the prisoner was respited, and
C. Cas. R.]
REG. v. THE GOVERNORS OF THE FOUNDLING HOSPITAL.
he was committed to the custody of the governor COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH. of the common gaol at Newington, in the said Reported by J. SHORTT and M. W. MCKELLAR, Esqrs.,
Wednesday, Nov. 8, 1871.
Reg. (on the prosecution of the Assessment ComNo counsel appeared to argue for the prisoner.
mittee of St. Pancras, resps.) v. THE GOVERNORS Oppenheim for the prosecution. The question in
OF THE FOUNDLING HOSPITAL (apps.) this case is whether there was evidence to show
Valuation Metropolis Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict., c. 67) that the prisoner at the time he appropriated the note to his own use believed he could find the
88. 45, 54-Valuation list-Entry of gro88 and
rateable value-Exceptional principle of valuation. owner of it. The case of Reg. v. Glyde decided that the finder of a sovereign in the high road, By sect: 45 of the Valuation Metropolis Act 1869 (32 &
33 Vict. c. 67), the valuation made in pursuance who at the time of finding had no reasonable means
of that Act is to be conclusive evidence of the gross of knowing who the owner was, but who at that time intended to appropriate it, even if the owner
value and of the rateable value of the several here
ditaments included therein for the purpose of should afterwards be discovered, and to whom the
certain rates and taxes; but by sect. 54 nothing owner was speedily made known, when he refused to
contained in the Act is to affect “any exemption or give it up, was held not guilty of larceny. That
deduction from or allowance out of any rate or decision was come to on the ground that there was no evidence to show that when the prisoner picked
tax whatever, or any privilege of or provision for
being rated or taxed on any exceptional principle of up the sovereign he had any reason to believe that
valuation.” the true owner could be found. Here the evidence is different. [LUSH, J.-But that point was not
The assessment committee of St. Pancras having
entered in the valuation list prepared by them in put to the jury.] The question reserved for this court is whether, under the circumstances, having
pursuance of the above Act, the true gross value
and the true rateable value of lands belonging to regard to the prisoner's conduct in dealing with
the Foundling Hospital, notwithstanding that the the note and denying all knowledge of it, the conviction was right. Now, may not the court
Foundling Hospital Act (13 Geo. 2, c.xxix.) provided
that such lands were not to be rated at any higher after verdict infer that the jury substantially found that point.
value than that at which they were rated in 1739KELLY, C. B.-It is quite clear that this convic
Hell, that the true gross and true rateable value had
been rightly inserted on the valuation list; and tion cannot be sustained. There was no evidence
that it was not for the assessment committee to take that the prisoner, at the time when he first received this note from his wife, believed that the
into account the exceptional principles of valuation
saved by sect. 54 of the Valuation Metropolis Act owner of it could be found; and if there had
1869. been, the proper question has not been left to the
This was a case stated for the opinion of the court jury.
by the Court of General Assessment Sessions for BYLES, J.-I also am of opinion that this
the Metropolis. conviction cannot be sustained. The prisoner
On an appeal on behalf of the governors and found the note in his wife's hands, and he did
guardians of the hospital for the maintenance and not know who the owner was; and there is no
education of exposed and deserted young children evidence that he had the means of knowing.. The
against a decision of the assessment committee of appropriating it under these circumstances is not
the parish of St. Pancras, Middlesex, approving larceny.
and confirming an assessment in the new valuation PIGOTT, B.--The question left to the jury, and which they have found, is whether they were
list for the said parish, made under and in pur
suance of the Valuation Metropolis Act 1869, satisfied that the prisoner could have found the
whereby the building and premises used by the owner within a reasonable time. That finding is
appellants for the purposes of the said hospital was quite consistent with this, that the prisoner him
assessed at 19001. gross, and 15921. rateable value, self believed he could not have found the true
the Court of General Sessions for the Metropolis, owner.
holden on the 27th Feb. 1871, confirmed the assessLUSH, J.—The real question for the jury in this
ment without costs, subject to the opinion of the case was, what was in the mind of the prisoner when
court on the following the bank note first came into his possession. But
CASE. without regard to his belief the jury were asked
1. The Foundling Hospital was incorporated by whether they were satisfied that the prisoner
royal charter, in the year 1739, under the name of could, within a rea onable time, have found the
"The governors and guardians of the hospital for owner. The jury have thought that he could, the
the maintenance and education of exposed and prisoner might have thought that he could not.
deserted young children,” and by an Act of The conviction cannot be sustained. HANNEN, J. concurred.
Parliament passed in the same year, 13 Geo. 2, Conviction quashed.
C, 29, the powers granted by the charter were confirmed and enlarged. This Act, after reciting the charter and the powers thereby given for the purchase of lands and the purchase or erection of an hospital, proceeds as follows:
And be it therefore enacted by the King's most excel. lent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that the said corporation called the governors and guardians of the hospital for the maintenance and education of ex.
posed and deserted young children, and their successors, MAG, CAS.- VOL. VII.