1824. PARKIN'S Case. As the prosecutor and the prisoner were drinking together some hours, the learned JUDGE had no doubt but that the prisoner either picked the prosecutor's pocket of the book containing the note, or that the prosecutor dropped his pocket-book, and the prisoner picked it up. The jury retired, and returned saying, they found the prisoner guilty of having the note in his possession, but how he got it they could not say. The learned JUDGE asked if they thought he might have found it three weeks after they were together in company on the 4th of November, and one of them said "yes." The learned JUDGE said that was an acquittal, and a verdict of not guilty was recorded. The learned JUDGE immediately gave the prisoner an admonition, and ordered the note to be given to the prosecutor, when some of the jury said; that the juryman who had answered the learned JUDGE, had no authority from his companions to give him the answer he did, and that several of them differed from him upon that answer. The jury were therefore directed to retire again, and the learned judge told them, that if they were satisfied the prisoner picked the prosecutor's pocket, or picked up the pocket-book animo furandi, after the prosecutor dropped it, they ought to convict, otherwise to acquit. They convicted the prisoner; but as there was an interval of three or four minutes after the verdict was recorded, before the jury expressed their dissent, the learned JUDGE reserved the point for the consideration of THE JUDGES. In Michaelmas Term 1824, THE JUDGES met and considered this case, and were clearly of opinion that the interval between the first taking and the carrying this note into Durham, did not prevent the offence from being a larceny in Durham; that the mistake in the verdict might be corrected, and that the conviction was therefore proper. (a) 1824. PARKIN'S REX v. ANN TURNER. 1824. THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. An indictment JUSTICE HOBHOYD, at the Summer assizes for Warwickshire in the year 1824, of feloniously uttering a false and counterfeit shilling, well knowing the same to be false and counterfeit, contrary to the statute 15 on 15 G. 2. feloniously ut- victions and judgments for misdemeanours on the same statute, must set out the former convictions and judgments with prout patet per recordam. Judgment for misdemeanour cannot be given on an indictment for felony, bad for want of such averment. (a) If one steal goods in one county and carry them into another, he may be indicted in either. But if one steal goods at sea, and bring them to land, he cannot be indicted in the county into which they are brought. Butler and other pirates robbed divers persons upon the high sea on the coast of Norfolk, and brought the goods into the county of Norfolk, and whether they might be indicted there of the larceny was moved before WRAY C.J. and PERIAM J., and resolved they could not, because the original taking was no felony, whereof the common law took cognizance. 3 Inst. 113. If A. steal goods in the county of B., and carry them into the county of C., he may be indicted in the county of C., for the continuance of the asportation is a new caption. 1 Hale, 507, 508. 4 Bla. Com. 305. If A. robs B. in the county of C., and carries the goods into the county of D., A. cannot be indicted of robbery in the county of D., because the robbery was in another county; but he may be indicted of larceny or theft in the county of D., because it is a theft wherever he carries the goods. 2 Hale, 163. 4 H. 7. 5. b. Bulmer's case, 7 Co. 2 a. If A. steal goods of B. in the county of C., and carry them into the county of D., he may be indicted in the county of D., as well as that of C., because the possession still continuing in B., every moment's continuance of the trespass, is as much a 1824. TURNER'S Geo. 2. c. 28. sec. 2. (a) having been twice before convicted of similar utterings as misdemeanours contrary to the same statute. The indictment stated in due form, that at a prior general gaol delivery, in and for the same county, she was tried and convicted by a jury upon an indictment which stated, that at a prior general quarter sessions for the same county, she was tried and convicted upon an indictment against her for the first offence, and which stated in due form the judgment of six month's imprisonment thereon, and for finding sureties for good behavour for six months more, 66 as by wrong, and may come under the word cepit as much as the first taking. 1 Hawk. c. 19. s. 52. If A steals B's goods, and C. steals them from A., C. may be indicted for stealing the goods of B., because, in judgment of law the possession and property still continue in B. 1 Hale, 507. 1 Hawk. c. 19. s. 13. If A. steals goods in the county of B., and carry them into several counties, it is felony in all the counties into which they are carried, for felony doth not divest the property. Bulmer's case, 7 Co. 2. a. (a) By which it is enacted, that if any person whatsoever shall utter or tender in payment any false or counterfeit money, knowing the same to be false or counterfeit, to any person, and shall be thereof convicted, such person so offending shall suffer six months' imprisonment, and find sureties for his good behaviour for six months more, to be computed from the end of the said first six months; and if the same person shall afterwards be convicted a second time of the like offence of uttering or tendering in payment any false or counterfeit money, knowing the same to be so, such person shall for such second offence, suffer two years' imprisonment, and find sureties for his good behaviour for two years more, to be computed from the end of the said first two years; and if the same person shall afterwards offend a third time in uttering or tendering in payment any false or counterfeit money, knowing the same to be so, and shall be convicted of such third offence, he shall be adjudged to be guilty of felony without benefit of clergy. the record thereof did more fully appear," it then stated, in due form, that she having been so convicted as aforesaid, committed the second offence in the late king's time against the form of the statute, &c. "and that thereupon, it was considered and adjudged by the said court first mentioned, that the said Ann Turner should be imprisoned in the common gaol of our said late lord the king, of the said county, for the term of two years, and until she should find sureties for her good behaviour for the term of two years more, to be computed from the expiration of the said first two years; herself in the penal sum of twenty pounds, and two sureties in the penal sum of ten pounds each;" and then, without any statement of prout patet per recordam, as to these proceedings for the second offence, the indictment tried before the learned JUDGE went on to state, in due form, that the said Ann Turner, having been so convicted as last aforesaid, feloniously committed the third offence against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. It was objected after the trial, in arrest of judgment, that the present indictment in setting forth the trial, conviction, and judgment upon the second indictm for the second offence, and which were essoyal to constitute the crime a felony as charged the third indictment, was defective in not stating or alleging a prout patet per recordam as to those proceedings, as appears to have been done in the second indictment, in stating the proceedings had under the first indictment. Vide 15 G.2. c. 28. s. 2. & 9. 2 Stark. Cr. Law. 535. Com. Dig. Plead. (C. 82.) (E. 18. 22.) Willes, 126. It was also objected, that there ought to have been an allegation that the former convictions and judgments remained in force unreversed, &c. And it was further objected, that it did not allege 1824. TURNER'S Case. 1824. TURNER'S Case. as facts the actual committing of the two former offences; or even the trials, convictions, and judgments upon both of them, but only the trial, conviction, and judgment, upon the second indictment, though the second indictment appeared to have alleged a trial, conviction, and judgment upon the first. See Michael's case, 2 Leach, C. C. 938. 4th ed. S. C. 1 East. P.C. Add. xix. Russ. & Ry. C. C. R. 29. 1 Russ. 116. Stark. Cr. Law. 535. The learned JUDGE respited the judgment, and the question reserved for the opinion of THE JUDGES was, whether the judgment could be arrested. Or, if the indictment be defective as for a felony, could it be deemed sufficient to warrant a judgment for the offence as for a misdemeanor? In Michaelmas Term, 1824, THE JUDGES met and considered this case, and held that the indictment was bad for want of a prout patet per recordam in the statement of the conviction and judgment for the second offence; and that no judgment could be given for the misdemeanor upon this record; and the judgment was therefore arrested. (a) (a) Vide Rex v. Smith, Russ. & P. C. 183. 2 Leach, C. C. 858. C. C. R. 7. Ry. C. C. R. 5. S. C. 1 East, |