" and was sworn, and took his corporal oath before the "Honourable Edward Willes, one of the Justices aforesaid, "on the Holy Gospel of God, &c. (he the said Edward "Willes then and there having competent authority to ad"minister an oath to the said John Alford in that behalf," &c.) It then set forth the evidence, before the said Edward Willes, and assigned the perjury. THE Jury found the prisoner guilty; but MR. Baron EYRE, who tried the indictment, expressed some doubt, Whether one Commissioner of Assize alone had competent authority to administer the oath; and therefore conceived the indictment ought to have alleged, that the oath was taken before both the Justices then in the commission. ANOTHER doubt also arose, Whether the evidence maintained the indictment? the nisi prius record of the cause in which the perjury was committed, stating in the usual form, that the trial was before both the Judges. THE case was therefore reserved; and on the first day of Hilary Term 1777, THE JUDGES were unanimously of opinion, that the conviction was good. 1776. ALFORD'S CASE THE KING against WILLIAM SNOW. CASE LXXXIII. sudden quar THE following case was submitted to the consideration of If on any the TWELVE JUDGES, at Serjeants'-Inn Hall, on the first rel, blows day of Michaelmas Term 1776, by MR. JUSTICE WILles. pass, without any intention to kill or injure another materially, and in the course of the scuffle, after the parties are heated by the contest, one kill the other with a deadly weapon, it is only manslaughter. -S. C. 1 East, 244. John Brown, ante, p. 148. there cited. Ar the preceding Summer Assize for Northampton, Wil- See the case of liam Snow was indicted for the murder of Thomas Palmer. It was questionable from the evidence, whether the crime and the cases amounted to murder, or to manslaughter; and Mr. Serjeant Vaughan, at the request of the learned Judge, came into court, and argued the point of law in favour of the prisoner with great ability. The Jury, however, thought that there appeared to be an implied malice in the prisoner's behaviour, 1776. and they accordingly found him guilty of murder (a). But the judgment was respited, in order to take the opinion of SNOW'S CASE. the JUDGES, Whether this conviction was warranted by the circumstances of the case? CASE. William Snow was a shoemaker; and Thomas Palmer a labouring man. They lived in the same neighbourhood, and at no great distance from each other. On the afternoon of the day mentioned in the indictment, the prisoner, very much intoxicated by liquor, passed accidentally by the house of the deceased's mother, while he was thatching an adjacent barn. They entered into conversation; but on the prisoner's abusing the mother and sister of the deceased, very high words arose on both sides, and they placed themselves in a posture to fight. The mother of the deceased, hearing them quarrel, came out of her house, threw water over the prisoner, hit him in the face with her hand, and prevented them from boxing. The prisoner went into his own house, and in a few minutes came out again, and set himself down upon a bench before his garden gate, at a small distance from the door of his house, with a shoemaker's knife in his hand, with which he was cutting the heel of a woman's shoe. The deceased, having finished his thatching, was returning in his way home by the prisoner's house. On passing the prisoner as he sat on the bench, the deceased called out to him, "Are not you an aggravating rascal?” The prisoner replied, "What will you be, when you are "got from your master's feet?" On which the deceased seized the prisoner by the collar, and dragging him off the bench, they both rolled down into the cartway. While they were struggling and fighting, the prisoner underneath and the deceased upon him, the deceased cried out, "You rogue, "what do you do with that knife in your hand?" and made an attempt to secure it; but the prisoner kept striking about, and held the deceased so hard that he could not disengage (a) The Learned Judge in his note of this case, says, "But it after"wards appeared, which I did not know at the trial, that several of the "Jurymen who tried the prisoner had been on the Coroner's Inquest, "which found him guilty of wilful murder." MS.. himself. 66 The deceased, however, made a vigorous effort, 1776. by which means he drew the prisoner from the ground, and, during this struggle the prisoner gave a blow; on which the SNOW'S CASE. deceased immediately exclaimed, "The rogue has stabbed. 44 Edw. III. pl. 44. Pulton, me to the heart, I am a dead man!" and expired. Upon 126. pl. 43. inspection it appeared that he had received three wounds; one very small on his right breast; another on the left thigh, two inches deep, and half an inch wide; and the mortal wound on his left breast. THE JUDGES, after great argument and consideration, See Rex v. Taylor, 5 determined, That the offence was manslaughter only, and Bur. Rep. the prisoner was recommended to a pardon. 2793. THE KING against LAVEY AND PARKER. CASE LXXXIV. latent silver from the body AT the Old Bailey in December Session 1776, William Extracting Lavey and Elizabeth Parker were indicted before MR. BARON HOTHAM, on the 8 and 9 Will. III. c. 26. s. 4. for felo- of base metal by means of niously and traitorously colouring with a wash, and mateaqua fortis, is rials producing the colour of silver, one round blank of base a colouring metal, of a fit size and figure to be coined into counterfeit and 9 Will. milled money, resembling the silver coin of this kingdom III. c. 26. s. 4. called a sixpence. THE Jury found the prisoners guilty upon very clear and satisfactory evidence; but it appeared that the colour of silver was produced by melting a small portion of good silver with a large portion of base metal, and throwing it, after it had been cut into round blanks, into aqua fortis, which draws to the surface whatever silver there is in the composition, and it assumes the colour and appearance of real silver. A doubt therefore arose, Whether this process of extracting the latent silver by the power of the wash, from the body to the surface of the blank, was "colouring with a wash and materials," within the meaning of the statute? or, Whether the legislature did not intend such a colouring only as is produced by some external application on the surface of the blank? within the 8 S. C. 1 East, 166. 1776. LAVEY AND UPON this doubt the question was referred to the consideration of the Judges. The words of the Act are," that "whosoever shall colour, gild, or case over with gold or "silver, or with any wash, or materials producing the colour 66 of gold or silver, any coin resembling any of the current "coins of this kingdom, or any round blanks of base metal, "or of coarse gold, or coarse silver, of a fit size and figure "to be coined into counterfeit milled money resembling any "of the gold or silver coin of this kingdom, shall be guilty "of high treason.” THE JUDGES in Hilary Term 1777, were unanimously of opinion, That this process of extracting the latent silver from the body to the surface of the base metal by the power of aqua fortis, is a colouring within the words, "materials "producing the colour of silver;" and the prisoners received sentence of death accordingly (a). (a) At Lancaster Spring Assizes 1795, William Case was tried, on the statute 8 and 9 William III. c. 26. 8. 4. for traitorously colouring with materials producing the colour of silver a piece of base coin resembling a shilling. The prisoner was apprehended, in the very act of steeping round blanks composed of brass and silver in aqua fortis: none of them were in a finished state; but many were taken out of the liquor, and others were found dry. These blanks exhibited the appearance of lead, and some of them had the impression of a shilling, and by rubbing them, they would perfectly resemble silver coin, but in their then state the Jury found that none of them would pass current. The question was whether the offence was completed inasmuch as the colour of silver had not been produced on any of the blanks. On the case being saved for the opinion of THE JUDGES, one Judge said he understood the words "colour, &c." to mean, producing on the piece of metal the colour of silver, which was not done here; for without rubbing, the money coined would not pass: and another observed that the word in the statute was "producing" in the present tense, and not material which would produce. But all the other Judges, absente PERRYN B. and BULLER J. thought the conviction right; for they considered that the offence was complete when the piece was coloured, for it was then coloured with materials which produce the colour of silver; and that it was not necessary that the piece so coloured should be current, for the colouring of blanks was an offence within the clause: and it was observed that a contrary construction would prevent any conviction until a wash was discovered which would in the first instance produce a perfect bright shilling or sixpence. 1 East, 165. 1777. THE KING against DOCTOR DODD. CASE LXXXV. AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1777, WILLIAM An accomDODD, Doctor of Laws, was indicted on the statute of 2 Geo. evidence beplice may give II. c. 25. for forging a certain paper-writing, purporting to fore a Grand Jury to supbe a bond in the penal sum of 8400l. and to be signed by the port an indictEarl of Chesterfield with the name "CHESTERFIELD," and to ment against a particeps cribe sealed and delivered by the said Earl: AND ALSO, for forg- minis; and a ing a certain paper-writing, purporting to be an acquittance bill so found is good, aland receipt for money (to wit) 42001. and to be signed by though the the said Earl of Chesterfield with the name "CHESTER- accomplice "FIELD." THE indictment consisted of eight counts, charging the prisoner with having knowingly uttered and published as be not previously admitted a witness for the Crown, and was car true the said paper-writings; and laying the offence to have ried from been committed with an intention to defraud, first, the Earl prison before of Chesterfield, and secondly, Mr. Henry Fletcher. The THE names of William Dodd and one Lewis Robertson were subscribed both to the bond and to the receipt, as attesting witnesses of the signature "CHESTERFIELD." prosecutors charged them with being equally guilty of the forgery; and from the evidence which was given against them on their examination before the magistrate, they were committed to Newgate as principals in the same felony; and the Earl of Chesterfield and other witnesses were bound in a recognizance to appear against, and prosecute both of them as principals in the same degree. A BILL of indictment was preferred at the ensuing Session at Hicks's Hall, before the Grand Jury for the County of Middlesex, against William Dodd only; and the agents for the prosecution obtained an order from Mr. Deacon, the Clerk of the Arraigns at the Old Bailey, dated the 19th February 1777, and directed to the Keeper of Newgate, commanding him to carry Lewis Robertson before the Grand Jury at Hicks's Hall, for the purpose of giving evidence in support of the indictment against William Dodd; and by the Grand Jury by means of a surreptitious and illegal order. |