Geo. II. c. 21. for maliciously and feloniously assaulting, on the King's highway, one John Lowe with a certain offensive weapon or instrument called a pistol, with a felonious intent the monies of the said John from his person, and against his will, feloniously to steal, take, and carry away. MR. LOWE, the prosecutor, deposed, That about half an hour past ten in the evening of the 21st June 1784, he was travelling in a post-chaise between Newington Turnpike and Ball's Pond, when the chaise suddenly stopped, and he saw a man with his arm extended toward the post-boy, and heard him swear many bitter oaths with great violence, but did not hear him make any demand of money. BENJAMIN DRING, the post-boy, swore, That the prisoner at the bar followed the chaise for some time, and at last presented a pistol at him, and bid him to stop, making use at the same time of many violent oaths; that he immediately stopped the chaise, and the prisoner turned toward it; but perceiving that he was pursued, he immediately rode away, without saying or doing any thing to Mr. Lowe, who was in the chaise; and that on his pursuers calling out, Stop thief! he was soon after taken. THE COURT to the Jury. This evidence is not sufficient; for the charge in the indictment is not for an assault with intent to rob Dring the postillion, but with an intent to rob Mr. Lowe, the gentleman in the chaise: now the intention to rob Mr. Lowe does not appear from any act proved upon the prisoner in the present case. THE JURY accordingly found the prisoner Not Guilty; but he was detained in custody, and the Grand Jury not being discharged, another indictment was found against him for an assault with intent to rob Benjamin Dring the postillion; but the same evidence being given as upon the former trial, THE COURT said: The statute of 7 Geo. II. c. 21. upon which this indictment is founded, enacts, "That if any per"son shall, with any offensive weapon or instrument, unlaw"fully or maliciously assault, or shall by menaces, or in or by any forcible or violent manner demand any money, 66 1784. THOMAS'S CASE, "goods or chattels of or from any other person, with a fe"lonious intent to rob, or commit robbery upon such person, " he shall be guilty of felony." But it does not appear that the prisoner made any demand whatever upon the post-boy, or that he had any intention to rob him; for when he presented his pistol to Dring and bid him stop, he made no demand on him, but went towards the person in the chaise, who it seems was the person he intended to rob, but of whom no demand was made, and it has been decided (1) that on this branch of the statute a demand, either express or implied, must be made. CASE CLXI. The drawer of a bill of competent witness to THE KING against JOHN SPONSONBY. OLD BAILEY July Session 1784, John Sponsonby was inexchange is a dicted before MR. SERJEANT ADAIR, Recorder, for forging an indorsement in the name of William Pearce on a bill of prove that the exchange purporting to be drawn by Richard Davis, in favour payee indorsed of William Pearce, on Messrs. Crofts and Co. for the sum of thereon is a four guineas, with intention to defraud, FIRST, Messrs. Crofts forgery; but the drawer's and Co. and SECONDLY, one John Churchill. name of the letter of advice to the payee is THERE were also other counts for uttering the said bill, not sufficient knowing the indorsement to be forged, with the like intention to prove his identity. to defraud. Peake, 6. 52. 996. It appeared in evidence, that the prisoner had gone to S. C. 2 East, Messrs. Crofts and Co. Bankers in Pall-Mall on the day the bill was due, and on receiving the four guineas, had written the name "John Churchill" on the back of the bill, by way of witnessing the receipt of the money; the name "William "Pearce" being then indorsed thereon; but none of the witnesses were able to prove who the prisoner was, or whether his name was or was not John Churchill; nor was there any evidence given of the existence of any other William Pearce, than that who had received advice of this bill having been drawn in his favour by Davis. WILLIAM PEARCE, the real payee of the bill, and an intimate acquaintance of Richard Davis the drawer; had re ceived a letter of advice from Davis signifying that such a bill, together with a bank-note, had been remitted to him; and desiring him, as an act of friendship, to pay their produce to one Coles in discharge of a debt which Davis owed to Coles. The bill never came into Pearce's hands, he consequently had no property in it; and having no demand on Davis the drawer for its amount, it was agreed that he was a competent witness to prove that the indorsement "William "Pearce" was not his handwriting (a). But it was necessary first to shew, that he was the identical William Pearce to whom the bill was made payable: and as the testimony of Davis the drawer was the best evidence of that fact, and he was not present to attest it (b), the letter of advice which Pearce had received from him was held insufficient for the purpose; and therefore Pearce's testimony to shew that the indorsement was forged was rejected: for although it might not be his handwriting, yet it might be the handwriting of a William Pearce; or, as he had not been proved to be the person intended as the payee of the bill, it might be the handwriting of the William Pearce to whom the bill was made payable. THE prisoner was accordingly acquitted on this indictment. But he was again tried on an indictment charging him with having forged the receipt in the name of John (a) See Captain Smith's Case, Old Bailey January Session 1768, in which the prisoner was tried for uttering a forged receipt of one George Maughan a butcher, at the island of Granada, upon a bill for butcher's meat supplied to the ship of which the prisoner was captain: the charge was for altering the figures in the quantity of meat, and in the sum they amounted to, with intent to charge one Trinder, the owner of the ship, with larger disbursements than the captain had really laid out. To prove that these alterations were forgeries and not the handwriting of Maughan, one Greenwood his partner was produced as one who was acquainted with Maughan's hand: and it not appearing that Maughan was dead, Gould and Yeates J. held that as he could give the best and most satisfactory evidence whether the alterations of the bill were forged, no evidence but his could be admitted of the forgery, he having no degree of interest in the question, and being a competent witness on that fact. 2 East, C. L. 1000, 1001. (b) See Mr. East's observations on the law of this Case, 2 East's Crown Law, p. 997. 1784. SPONSONBY'S 1784. SPONSONBY'S Churchill, but as no proof could be given that it was not the handwriting of the John Churchill whose name it purported to be, he was again acquitted (a). (a) But see the Case of Rex v. Downes, Lancaster Summer Assizes 1789, before the JUDGES, in which it was determined that if the drawer's name appears to be forged on a bill as well as the indorser's, it is no objec tion that the drawer was not called to prove upon whom the bill was drawn, there being two of the name at the place; and it may be shewn by other evidence who the prisoner meant by the person whose name he forged as the payee and indorser. 2 East, C. L. 997. and the Case of Mead v. Young, 4 Term Rep. 28. CASE CLXII considered a THE KING against STONE. What shall be OLD BAILEY July Session 1784: This was an indictinent on the statute 10 and 11 Will. III. c. 23. for privately steal10 & 11 Will, ing a watch, the property of Sir Robert Heskett, in the shop shop, &c. within the III. c. 23. S. C. 2 East, 643. See Howard's Case, in ports, 77. of John Alcock. SIR ROPERT HESKETT had sent this watch to his watchmaker Mr. Alcock, for the purpose of being repaired, and it hung in the show-glass in Mr. Alcock's shop at the time it was stolen. THE COURT said, that the meaning of the Act of Par Foster's Re- liament upon which the capital part of the indictment was founded, had always been restrained to such goods only, as are exposed to sale in shops; and did not extend to mere repositories for goods, although they might appear in the nature of shops; and that as Mr. Alcock's shop was not, with respect to this watch, a place of sale, but a mere repository, the prisoner ought to be acquitted of the capital part of the charge (a). (a) At the Old Bailey, in April Session 1725, a man was indicted on this statute, for stealing a shirt out of the shop of W. R. It appeared in evidence, that it had been left by the owner with the master of the shop, in order that he might send it to a sempstress to mend. The Question was, Whether the prisoner was, in this case, ousted of his clergy?—THE JUDGES were of opinion that he was not, for that the statute was made as a remedy for the masters of shops to preserve their own goods, which THE Jury accordingly found him guilty of the simple larteny only, and he was transported for seven years. might be left there by way of trade, and did not extend to goods casually left there; and consequently the stealing of such goods, to the value of five shillings, was not felony without benefit of clergy.-See this Case, 8 Mod. 165. 1784. STONE'S CASE. THE KING against ROBERT MOORË. CASE CLXII To snatch a diamond pin from the head. with such a sufficient See the case page 320, AT the Old Bailey in July Session 1784, Robert Moore was tried before MR. JUSTICE ASHHURST, for feloniously assaulting Arabella Jeffries on the 5th June preceding, and put- dress of a lady ting her in corporal fear and danger of her life, and felo- force as to reniously taking from her person and against her will, one dia- move it, with part of the mond pin set in silver, of the value ten pounds, her property. hair, from the place in which THE prosecutrix, one of the maids of honour, accompanied it was fixed is by her daughter, had been attending his Majesty's birth-night violence to ball at St. James's Palace, on the 4th June. On their depar- constitute robbery. ture from the assembly-room, they were conducted by Count Dillon from the princesses' apartments on the back stairs of Rex v. La towards that part of the courtyard which is called the Angle, pier, ante, where the coach had been ordered to be ready, but not being Case 155, and yet arrived the Count conducted the ladies on foot towards the Cases cited, 2 East, the great gates of the palace leading into St. James's Street, 708, 709. when their further progress was, for a short time, impeded by a row of sedan chairs, and by the concourse of people of all descriptions who usually resort to the palace on these occasions. The person of Mrs. Jeffries, and particularly her head-dress was decorated with a profusion of diamonds and other jewels of various kinds, but there was one consisting of seven buttons of peculiar brilliancy fixed on a long screw silver stalk of considerable weight, which was very deeply twisted into her hair, and the hair strongly craped all round it. While she was thus prevented in reaching her carriage which stood near the corner of the arch, the prisoner, who was standing close to her in the crowd, looked up very steadfastly in her face, as if taking aim at the pin, and, saying |