1835. DANN'S Case. JUDGES; but they declined giving any opinion, as no judgment had been given upon it, and the case might at some future period come before some of them upon a writ of error. The learned JUDGE has since given the case the best consideration, and upon that consideration is of opinion that the plea is good. The plea of autre fois acquit is grounded upon an ancient maxim of the common law of England, that no one ought to be brought into jeopardy of his life twice for the same offence. A great deal of learning is to be found upon the subject in 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 35., and Starkie on Criminal Pleading, p. 316. and many other books. Upon the result of all the authorities, the question is, whether the prisoner could have been convicted on the former indictment, for if he could, he must be acquitted on the second; and the law is very correctly stated to the jury by Mr. JUSTICE BURROUGH in the case of The King v. Sheen, 2 Car. and Payne, 634.: that "whether at the former trial the proper evidence was adduced before the jury or not is immaterial; for if by any possible evidence that could have been produced he could have been convicted on that indictment, he is now entitled to be acquitted." It is argued for the prosecution, that an acquittal of a joint felony is not a bar to an indictment for a several felony. However that might be if it clearly appeared upon the record that several felonies had been committed, in some of which the prisoner Dann had been jointly and in another separately concerned, it does not appear that the present indictment is confined to an offence committed by the prisoner separately; nor is it so. Upon it he is liable to be convicted of an offence committed separately or jointly with any other person, and consequently with Whitehead. The plea alleges that the charge in the former indictment against Whitehead and the prisoner and the other three, is the same offence as that charged in the former indictment, and this is admitted by the demurrer. The argument that the prisoner could not be convicted upon the former indictment is not true. The result of that indictment shows that it was not necessary to convict all the parties charged by that indictment. The prisoner might have been convicted either with Whitehead or without him; nay if the JUDGE had called upon the prosecutor to elect against whom he would proceed (whether he did so or not the learned JUDGE was not at liberty to consider, as nothing respecting it appears upon record), and he had elected to proceed against the prisoner, he might have been convicted alone, which shows he has been in jeopardy; and if the plea of autre fois acquit is not a bar, he may now be convicted of the very offence committed jointly with Whitehead, and of which Whitehead has been convicted. A replication, that the charges were not the same, might possibly upon evidence have placed the case in a very different point of view. As the record now stands, the learned JUDGE is bound to adjudge the plea to be good, and that the prisoner be discharged. The learned JUDGE has had less hesitation in coming to this decision, inasmuch as if the plea were overruled, and the prisoner, on pleading over to the felony, were found guilty, he is of opinion, as at present advised, no judgment could be given upon this indictment, which is stated to have been found upon the oath or affirmation of A. B., &c., then and there sworn or charged as jurors, &c., without saying who were sworn and who affirmed, and without showing that the latter 1835. DANN'S Case. 1835. DANN'S Case. were entitled to serve as grand jurors upon their affirmation only. (a) (a) There was a similar proceeding against the three other acquitted Defendants, Mary Harvey, Jonathan Cork, and John Clayton, who were also discharged. 1835. ing a letter, burn, &c., which is set the letter sent amounted to such threat. REX v. WILLIAM TYLER and Another. On an indict- THIS was an indictment tried before LORD DENMAN ment for send- C. J., at the Spring assizes, 1835, at Chelmsford, threatening to against William Tyler and Samuel Spooner, for that they, on the 23d of February, at London, knowingly, out, it may be wilfully, and feloniously, did send to Isaac Belcher left to the jury to say whether a writing, without name or signature, directed to the said Isaac Belcher, by the name and description of "Starve Gut Belcher," threatening to kill and murder him, which said writing is as follows, viz. : — "Starve Gut Belcher, if you don't go on better great will be the consequence; what do you think you must alter an (or) must be set fire; this came from London: i say your nose is as long rod gffg sharp as a flint. 1835. You ought to pay your men." A second count set out the letter as threatening to burn and destroy his houses, outhouses, barns, stacks of corn and grain, hay and straw. The learned LORD CHIEF JUSTICE asked the jury in the terms of the statute, whether this was a letter threatening to put Isaac Belcher to death, or to burn and destroy his houses, outhouses, barns, stacks of corn and grain, hay and straw? The jury negatived the threat to put him to death, but found that the letter threatened to fire his houses, outhouses, barns, stacks of corn and grain, hay and straw. The learned JUDGE had some doubts whether this question ought to have been left to the jury, and whether the letter can be, in point of law, a threatening letter to the effect found. In Easter term 1835, the case was considered by Lord DENMAN C. J., TINDAL C. J., PARK J., LITTLEDALE J., GASELEE J., BOSANQUET J., ALDERSON B., WILLIAMS J., COLERIDGE J., and they held the conviction good after verdict. 1835. TYLER'S ¡Case. REX v. ALEKSANDER SZUDURSKIE, alias THE prisoner was tried before Mr. JUSTICE GASELEE, at the Spring assizes, 1835, for the county of Kent; for that he, on the 20th day of August 1834, at East Wickham, feloniously did utter, dispose of, and put off a forged bill of exchange, viz. : — "No. 6811. 'S' Due 7th December. 1835. Indictment for forged bill of exchange set uttering a out, "å 4 mois cette lettre somme de 500 livres sterling," "at four months date "St. Petersburg, le 4 Août 1834. B. P. £500 and translated, Stg. - A quatre mois de date par cette lettre de change à l'ordre de nous-mêmes la sommé de cent livres sterling, value en moi même, que serez suivant l'avi de "No. 7800. 497. cinq by this bill of exchange, to pas the order of "Streight and Co. ourselves,the sum of five hundred pounds sterling:" held "Messrs. Brown, Dan, Hamming, Dublin. Payable, Londres." And which in English is as follows: "No. 6811. 'S' Due 7th December. "St. Petersburgh, the 4th August 1834. Good for good. 1835. SZUDURSKIE'S Case. £500 sterling. At four months date by this bill of exchange to the order of ourselves the sum of five hundred pounds sterling, value in myself, which you will pass according to the advice of "No. 7800. 497. "Stieglitz and Co. "Messrs. Brown, Dan, Hamming, Dublin. Payable, London." Across which said bill of exchange were and are the following words: "Accepted for five hundred pounds sterling. Payable at Messrs. Ransom & Co.'s, bankers, London.— Brown, Dan, Hamming." well knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud George Finch, against the statute. Second count, having in possession said bill of exchange with forged indorsement thereon, viz. Stieglitz and Co.," feloniously did offer, &c. said forged indorsement, well knowing, &c., with intent to defraud George Finch. Third and fourth counts, — with intent to defraud John Squire and others. Four other counts, omitting to set forth the instrument. The facts of the case were fully proved. but on the reading the bill, which exactly agreed with the statement of it in the first count, it was objected that it was not a bill of exchange, for that it contained no order to pay, and that the word livres did not mean pounds. The learned JUDGE thought, however, upon the whole of the instrument taken together, it was a bill of exchange, but agreed to reserve the question. And the prisoner was thereupon found guilty, but judgment was respited until the opinion of THE JUDGES Could be taken. The case was considered in Easter term 1835, by Lord DENMAN C. J., TINDAL C. J., PARK J., LIT |