very deaf, and the prisoner's mother, and told her she had better confess the truth, because she believed it was her that fired both the house and the stack, and that it would be a great deal the worse for her if she did not confess. The prisoner said she did not. On that same Saturday, the prisoner was taken by a constable before a magistrate at Spilsby. On the Sunday morning, Mrs. Bowis saw the prisoner again on the road to Mrs. Bowis's house. Mrs. Bowis said to the prisoner she should not come to her house, and told her again it was her that fired both the house and the stack; she said she did not do it. Soon after that, the witness Handsley came up and joined them, and Handsley said to the prisoner, "Don't be so bold, perhaps you will have to go to Spilsby to-morrow." Spilsby is the place where the magistrates meet. He told her that perhaps somebody will come forward to-morrow that saw you do it. She took her apron up and held it to her face, and said no more. She always denied it; and when the witness said she might have to go to Spilsby, she denied it again. He said, "If you be guilty go along with Mrs. Bowis and beg your master and mistress's pardon, and get away and be better in future, and we shall not seek after you;" and he said, "Never mind your wages, I'll give you a few shillings out of my own pocket." And Handsley also told her, it would be better for her to confess. After he went away, Mrs. Bowis went with the prisoner to Blackburn's house, and talked to her about the fire all the way; and after they got there they went out of the house, and Mrs. Bowis said to the prisoner, Now, Sarah, you lighted the bunch of matches

4

and put into the thatch of the house."

It appeared, however, that before she said that to the prisoner, she told the prisoner, that if she went

1834.

SIMPSON'S

Case.

1834.

SIMPSON'S
Case.

to Spilsby again, she would be a good deal worse off; and Mrs. Bowis said to her several times, both on going along the road to the prosecutor's house, and also in the house, and also when she spoke to her out of doors, that it would be a great deal better for her if she would confess, and also told her it would be a great deal worse for her if she would not confess.

The counsel for the prisoner objected to evidence being given of what the prisoner said, on Mrs. Bowis charging her as before stated, on the ground, that after these promises and threats had been held out to her, her answer could not be received unless she had had a caution.

The counsel for the prosecution contended that her answer might be received, because Handsley was neither a constable, nor did he stand in any relation to the prosecutor; and though Mrs. Bowis was the mother of the wife of the prosecutor, yet that promises and threats made by a person standing in that relation were not sufficient to exclude a confession.

The learned JUDGE allowed the evidence to be given, but reserved the question for the opinion of THE JUDGES, whether it ought to have been received.

On Mrs. Bowis saying to the prisoner, "Now, Sarah, you lighted the bunch of matches, and put it into the thatch. The prisoner said, "Yes, I did.”

Mrs. Bowis then told Mrs. Blackburn what had passed, and Mrs. Blackburn then came out, and then Mrs. Bowis in the presence of Mrs. Blackburn, asked the prisoner what she did it for; whether it was for any thing against the family? she said, "No." Mrs. Blackburn asked, if any one persuaded to it? she said, "No;" she said, she "had no malice." The prisoner in her defence, asserted her innocence, and said that Mrs. Bowis said, that if she would confess to it she would have her liberty; and the prisoner

stated, that she said it on purpose to get her liberty, and that they frightened her to do it.

The jury said, they found the prisoner guilty with her own confession; but the learned JUDGE told them they must find the prisoner either guilty or not guilty, and then they gave a verdict of guilty. The learned JUDGE respited judgment, that the opinion of THE JUDGES might be taken.

In Easter term 1834, at a meeting at which all THE JUDGES were present, this case was considered, and they were unanimously of opinion that the confession ought not to have been received, and that the conviction was bad.

1834.

SIMPSON'S

Case.

REX v. THOMAS ROBINSON.

THE prisoner was tried before Mr. BARON VAUGHAN at a special gaol delivery for the county of Kent, in December 1833, upon an indictment, the first count of which charged,

That he on the 2d day of December, 4 W. 4. at Chatham, did utter &c. a counterfeit shilling to one Benjamin Giles, knowing it to be counterfeit.

1834.

On a convic

tion of two se

parate offences of uttering counterfeit coin, in two counts, one

judgment for two years' imprisonment under 2 W. 4.

c. 34. s. 7. is

The second count charged him with uttering to bad. Maria Harrison a counterfeit shilling, on the same day and at the same parish, knowing &c.

The prisoner was convicted upon very clear and satisfactory evidence of the utterings, as charged in both counts of the indictment. It was also proved that he had on the same day, uttered a counterfeit shilling and sixpence to two other persons.

The learned BARON sentenced the prisoner to two years' imprisonment and hard labour in the House of

1831.

ROBINSON'S
Case.

Correction, and the question for the opinion of THE JUDGES was, whether under the stat. 2 W. 4. ç. 34. s. 7. such sentence was correct.

This case was considered in Easter Term 1834, by all THE JUDGES (except PARKE J. and PATTESON J.), and they were unanimously of opinion, that the sentence was incorrect, and that there should have been consecutive judgments of one year's imprisonment each, the conviction was therefore held bad.

1834.

a pay-serjeant

REX v. JAMES HOPE.

The prisoner, THE prisoner was convicted before Lord C. J. of the artillery, TINDAL, on an indictment which, that he on the 22d the pay-master May &c., feloniously did forge a certain receipt a receipt for a for money which is as follows (that is to say),

obtained from

sum of money

as part of subsistence of a company for

the month of May. He afterwards erased May and inserted

June and gave the receipt to a tradesman, who, accord ing to the usual practice, advanced

sum to the

prisoner,

the

and

sent the receipt to the agent of the regiment, who paid the

amount. The

indictment for

Received the 22d day of May 1834, of Messrs Cor and Co., pay masters, royal regiment of artillery, the sum of 131. sterling, being a part of subsistence for a detachment of Captain Bayley's company, second battalion royal artillery at Woolwich, for the month of June 1834.

R. M. Poulden, Lieutenant royal artillery. with intent to defraud Richard Henry Cox, and others against the statute &c. There was a second count for feloniously uttering a like forged receipt for money knowing it to be forged.

Another count charged him with having in his custody and possession, a certain receipt for money, of the same form as that above set forth, with the exception that it purported to be for subsistence money, for the month of May 1834; and that he feloniously did alter the said receipt, by erasing the a receipt, was word May, and inserting instead thereof the word held good.

forgery, describing the

instrument as

June.

In other counts the offence was stated to have been committed with intent to defraud Henry Thomset Failey, and with intent to defraud Richard Matthews Poulden, At the trial before the learned lord chief justice at Maidstone, at the Summer assizes 1834, it appeared that in May then last, Lieutenant Poulden had the charge of a detachment of Captain Bayley's company of the second battalion royal artillery at Woolwich, of which he was also the pay master. The prisoner was acting under him as pay serjeant.

The following is the mode by which the subsistence money is provided. The pay serjeant makes out for the use of the paymaster, at the beginning of every month, an abstract of the subsistence money, which will be wanted for the soldiers during the ensuing month, and the paymaster gives information to Messrs. Cox and Greenwood, the agents of the regiment accordingly.

The pay sergeant, in order to receive this money, brings to the paymaster, about once a week, a receipt, partly printed and partly filled up by himself, in the form above set forth, and upon obtaining the paymaster's signature thereto, he gets cash for it from any of the neighbouring tradesmen, who afterwards either pass it to others or send it up through their bankers to Messrs. Cor and Greenwood, who ultimately pay the amount to the bearer. In the present case, the prisoner brought the instrument in question to Lieutenant Poulden, on the 22d of May, filled up, as a receipt for subsistence money for the money for the month of May, which Lieutenant Poulden signed, not being aware of the time that he had already signed the receipts for all the subsistence money which had been provided for the month of May.

The prisoner, after obtaining it, erased the word May, and inserted instead thereof the word June, thereby

1834.

HOPE'S

Case,