1772. BOLLAND'S See the Case of James 66 áir of astonishment, said, "What bill! I never discounted a bill with you, Sir. You mistake me. My name is James "Bolland. I never saw you in my life; and you have no "bill with my indorsement on it." And when Cardeneaur insinuated that he was acquainted with his having altered the name, he treated the idea of its being a forgery with the most supercilious contempt. WHEN the bill became due Bolland refused to pay it; and Cardeneaux put it into the hands of a Mr. Morris, in order to obtain the money. WHILE things remained in this situation, Mr. Levi, an Attorney, two of whose clients Bolland had deceived, got intelligence from Pritchard of the alteration of the name of "BOLLAND" to that of " BANKS," and he applied to Cardeneaux to prosecute, to which Cardeneaux consented. To obtain the note, Levi, by the desire of Cardeneaux, gave Mr. Morris an undertaking to deliver up, or to be accountable to him for, the bill. Levi apprehended Bolland, and, on his being committed by Sir John Fielding, deposited the note with Sir John's clerk, who produced it at the trial. AFTER Bolland's commitment, a person brought the 1001. to Mr. Cardeneaux, in the name of James Banks, and he gave him a receipt, the form of which the person brought with him in the name of James Banks, containing a promise to deliver up the bill on demand, the bill being then in the custody of the Magistrate. But it did not appear that there ever was in fact such a person existing as JAMES BANKS of Rathbone Place. THE Jury found the prisoner Guilty; and he received sentence of Death; but the execution of the sentence was respited; and it was submitted to the consideration of THE TWELVE JUDGES, Whether, under all the circumstances of this case, Bolland had been guilty of forgery within the meaning of the statute of the 2 Geo. II. c. 25. THE opinion of the Judges upon this case was never pub- Cogan, post. licly communicated. July Session, 1787. been, Whether forgery can be committed in the name of a person who never had existence? BOLLAND was executed at Tyburn the 18th May 1772. 1772. THE KING against CATHERINE GRAHAM. CASE XLVIII. A relative referring with equal uncertainty to two AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1772, three men, of the names of Jennings, Birch, and Smith, were tried as principals in simple grand larceny, before SIR JAMES EYRE, Recorder; present MR. BARON SMYTHE, MR. JUSTICE ASH- will vitiate an HURST, and MR. JUSTICE NARES. THE indictment contained two counts; the first of which charged the prisoners above named with stealing two banknotes; and the second charged them with stealing a pocketbook and other things, the property of James Maden, privately from his person. In the same indictment one Catherine Graham was charged as an accessary after the fact, at common law, for harbouring and maintaining the principal felons," she well knowing that the said Jennings, Birch, and Smith, had committed the felony aforesaid." She also stood charged with receiving the said goods, well knowing them to have been stolen. BIRCH was acquitted of the whole charge. Jennings and Smith were found guilty of stealing, but not privately from Catherine Graham was found guilty of con the person. cealing and harbouring the principal felons. SIR JAMES EYRE suggested a doubt as to the propriety of the conviction of the accessary. The indictment charged the principals with two distinct felonies; and the accessary with harbouring those principals, well knowing they had committed the felony aforesaid. It was therefore uncertain to which of the felonies this charge referred. THE COURT Concurring in this doubt, the judgment was respited, and the question submitted to the consideration of THE TWELVE JUDGES. In the June Session following, the antecedents indictment. 1772. judgment was ordered to be arrested; and the prisoner Catherine Graham was discharged. CASE XLIX. ment of bur glary, the THE KING against WITHAL AND Overend. On an indict- AT the Assizes holden at Guildford for the County of Surrey 1772, the prisoners were tried upon an indictment for burprisoner may glariously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Elibe acquitted of the break- zabeth Penifold of Croydon, and stealing therein one box, ing, and found containing sixty pounds of money, the property of the said guilty of stealElizabeth. There was a second count, the same as the first, only laying it to be the property of thirty persons therein named, who held a Club at her house. ing in the dwellinghouse to the amount of forty shillings. S. C. 2 East, 515, 517. See Hungerford's Case, 2 East, 518. THE evidence was very full against the prisoners, as to the stealing of the box and money in the dwelling-house of Elizabeth Penifold, to whose care it was entrusted by the members of the Club; but as to the breaking, the evidence was defective. THE verdict was entered upon the record: "Jury say, Nor "GUILTY of breaking and entering the dwelling-house in "the night, but GUILTY of stealing the box and money in "the dwelling-house." UPON this form of entering the verdict, it was objected by the prisoner's Counsel, that they were not excluded from the benefit of clergy, because the Jury had acquitted them of the burglary, and there was no separate and distinct count in the indictment on the 12 Ann. c. 7. for stealing in the dwelling-house to the value of forty shillings. UPON this objection the case was reserved: but in Hilary Term 1774, THE JUDGES were of opinion, That the prisoners were by this finding ousted of their clergy, for that the indictment contained every charge that was necessary in an indictment upon that statute, viz. stealing in a dwellinghouse to the amount of forty shillings. 1772. THE KING against ROGERS. but CASE L. The apartlodgers shall ments of as their respective premises do under the same roof. AT the Old Bailey in October Session 1772, William Rogers was indicted before MR. JUSTICE GOULD, present MR. BARON ADAMS, for breaking and entering the dwelling-house be considered of Philip Chandler. davellingTHE Owner of the house had let the whole of it in apart- houses, if the ments to different persons; and did not inhabit any part owner of the himself. Philip Chandler rented the bottom part of the not sleep house, viz. a shop and a parlour, and a cellar which run underneath the shop and parlour, for 12l. 10s. per annum ; the owner had taken back the cellar for the purpose of keeping wood and lumber in it, and for which he gave Chandler ten shillings a year, which he deducted from the 12l. 10s. The entrance to the house was through a passage, by a door which opened into and from the street. In the passage another door opened into the parlour; and beyond that a staircase led to the upper apartments. The shop and parlour were broke open. THE prisoner's Counsel objected, that this was improperly laid to be the dwelling-house of Philip Chandler. 506. L. C. B. Mr. J. Gould, Mr. J. Nares, On the first day of the ensuing Michaelmas Term, MR. JUSTICE GOULD stated this case to nine of the Judges (1); (1) Ld. Mansand they all agreed that the shop and parlour were properly field, laid to be the dwelling-house of the prosecutor. They ar- Smythe, gued, that it could not be charged to be the dwelling-house of the owner, as he did not inhabit any part of it; and if under such circumstances it were not to be considered as the dwelling-house of the persons who rented the apartments, houses in these situations, which are extremely common in London, would be altogether unprotected against burglary. But if the owner had inhabited any part of the house, it would have been otherwise; for then the renters would have been lodgers or inmates, and it must have been charged to be the dwelling-house of the owner. See Kelynge, 83, 84. Mr. B.Adams, 1772. ROGERS'S CASE. Tracey, v. Talbot, 2 Salk. 532. per, 4. General Gansel's Case, CowTurner's Case, O. B. February Sess. 1784. Trapshaw's Case, O. B. August 1786, post, and Carrol's Case post, O. B. February Sess. 1782 (a). (a) I have been favoured with the following opinion of L. C. J. Holt upon this subject, from the manuscript notes of the late L. C. B. Parker.If inmates have several rooms in a house, of which rooms they keep the keys, and inhabit them severally with their families, yet if they enter into the house at one outer door with the owner, these rooms cannot be said to be the dwelling-houses of the inmates, but the indictment ought to be for breaking the house of the owner. Mr. Tanner, an ancient Clerk of the Court, said, that the constant opinion and practice had been according to the opinion of L. C. J. Kelynge, which opinion was cited by L. C. J. Holt, upon this occasion at the Old Bailey October Session 1701. See these notes referred to in the case of Lee and Gansel, Cowper's Reports, 2. CASE LI. A prisoner may be indicted for having the unlawful cus tody of a THE KING against HUGH LENNARD. AT the Lent Assizes for Taunton, in the county of Somerset, on 26th March, 1772, Hugh Lennard was indicted and tried before MR. JUSTICE BLACKSTONE on the statute of the 8 & 9 Will. III. c. 26. for High Treason, for having in his cusmould; for a tody and possession, without any lawful authority or sufficient mould being mentioned in excuse, one mould made of lead, on which was made and imthe first clause pressed the figure, stamp, resemblance, and similitude of one of the sides or flats, viz. the head side, of a shilling. of the Act, it is to be considered as included in THERE was another count for having in his custody a mould the general words tool or on which was made or impressed the figure, stamp, reseminstrument, in blance, and similitude of the reverse side of a shilling. the subsequent clause. S. C. 1 East, 170. S. C. 2 Black. THE prisoner alledged in his defence that he was a buttonmaker, and that this was a mould for the casting of buttons, but produced no evidence; and the fact of custody being clearly proved, the Jury found the prisoner guilty; but MR. JUSTICE BLACKSTONE, there being no counsel for the pri |