Page images
PDF
EPUB

8. Particular in the county of W., labourer,” the judge, at the trial, ordered this requisites and to be amended, by striking out the word "wife," and inserting the word parts.

** widow." (Reg. v. Orchard, 8 Car. & P. 565).

This enactment makes pleas in abatement for misnomer or want of a dition of very little use.

We therefore forbear entering into a full detail of the law as to what is a sufficient description of a defendant's name and addition. See sue law fully collected in 1 Chit. Cr. Lau, 202 to 210; Jercis's Archb. C. Lau, 9th edit., 27, &c.; and see tit.“ Abatement,Vol. I., as to pleas in abatement, and the note, ante, 879 et seg.

4. Xame and de Scription of prosecutor and third persons

How to be stated.

When name known

When unknown.

4. NAME AND DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTOR AND THIRD PERSONS. And herein

(a) How they are to be stated.
(6) The Consequences of a Misstatement.

(a) How stated.
When knoon.]–Wherever the name of the person injured is knon
to the jurors, his Christian and surname ought to be put in the indiet-
ment. (2 Hauk. c. 25, s. 71). But he may be described by the name
he has assumed, though not his right name. (R. v. Norton, R. & R.C
C. 510; R. v. Sull, I Leach, 100 to 105; R. v. Berriman, 6 C. & P.
601; Anon., 6 C. & P. 408; R. v. J. Williams, 7 C. & P. 298). And
upon an indictment for the murder of a bastard child, it cannot be de
seribed by the name of its mother, unless that name be gained by repa-
tation. (R. v. Clark, R. & R. 358; R. v. Erans, 8 C. & P.765; R.T.
Smith, 1 Mood. C. C. 402; R. v. Waters, 7 C. & P. 250).

When unknown.]But if they know not his name, an indictment for the murder of a person unknown, or for stealing the goods of a person unknown, is good. (2 Hale, 181; 1 Chit. Crim. Law. 212, 213). And a child cannot be described as “a certain male infant of tender as, wit, of the age of &c., and not baptized :" the indictment must either state its name, or state it to be to the jurors unknown. (Reg. T. Det 2 Mood, C. C. 93; 8 C. & P. 773: Řeg. v. Hicks, 2 M. & RASC). But the absence of a name was held to be sufficiently accounted for bir the child being described as “then lately before born of the body of A. B.” (Reg. v. Hogg, 2 M. & Rob. 380).

If the person injured be described as a certain person to the la unknown, and it appear in evidence that his name is known, the fendant will be acquitted. (See R. v. Walker, 3 Camp. 264; R. T. Be binson, 1 Holt, 595).

Addition of Party. Also, there is no need of an addition of the son upon whom the offence is committed, unless there be a plurality persons of the same name; neither then is it essential to the indictmen though sometimes it may be convenient, for distinction sake, to add to (2 Hale, 182).

Where it appeared that the party injured had a mother of the saint name, the Court held that it was not necessary to distinguish ber in to indictment by the addition “the younger," although it was objected that in such a case, where such an addition is not given, the presump tion is that it is the parent and not the child that is intended; and some cases were cited to that effect. (R. v. Peace, 3 B. & Ald. 579). But R. v. Deeley, where the prisoner was convicted at the Old Bailey APA Sessions, 1831, of bigamy, on an indictment for marrying " Elizabeta Chant, widow," his former wife being alive, and it appeared in evidene that Elizabeth Chant was a spinster; on a case reserved, the che judges held the variance fatal, and that the prisoner was entitled to discharge. (R. & M. O. C. 303; 4 C. & P. 579, S. C.)

Addition

In R.v. Ogilvie, (2 C. & P. 230), it was held, the addition of Esquire 8. Particular to the name was not material, and, though not proved, it was not ground requisites and for an acquittal.

parts. Dignity of Party.7-If the third party has a name and dignity, as a Dignity. peer, baronet, or knight, he should be properly described by it, because a name of dignity is not merely an addition, but, being the very appellation by which the individual is commonly known, becomes, therefore, actually part of his name. A variance, therefore, in this respect is fatal; as, to describe a man a marquis, when he is an earl; or a knight, when he is, in fact, a baronet. (2 Hawk. c. 25, ss. 70, 71). The usual way of describing a peer is by his Christian name and his title, as, Lawrence Earl of Ferrers, omitting his family surname; but there seems to be no objection to describe him also by his surname, as William Byron, Baron Byron. (19 St. Tr. 1177 ; R. v. Brinklett, 3 C. & P. 416). A baron has been held well described as Lord A. (Reg. v. Pitts, 8 Ć. & P.771; Reg. v. Elliott, Id. 772, n.)

Bastards. ]—A bastard should be described by the name he has gained Bastards. by reputation : describing him of his mother's name, he not having gained that name by reputation, would be bad. (R. v. Clarke, R. & R. 358. See tit. “ Bastards," Vol. 1.)

Idem Sonans. If the sound of the name be not affected by the mis- Idem sonans. spelling, such mis-spelling will be immaterial ; and where a party was indicted for an offence upon one Whyneard, whose real name was Winyard, but pronounced Winnyard, the indictment was held good. (R. v. Foster, R. & R. C. C. 412). So, " Benedetto,for “ Beneditto," is no variance. (Ahitbol v. Beneditto, 2 Taunt, 401). Nor is “ Segrave" for “ Seagrare." (Williams v. Ogle, 2 Stra. 889). But an indictment charging the prisoner with having personated “ M'Cann," instead of M*Carn,” is bad ; (3 Stark. Evid. 1578); and “ Tarbart,” for “ Tabart;" (6 Taunt. 514); “ Shakepeare,” for “ Shakespeare;" (R. v. Shakespeare, 10 East, 83); and “Shutliff,for “ Shirtliff,are variances. (1 Chit. C. L., 2nd edit., 216).

As to the mode of describing the names of the party injured, and in larceny, burothers, in the particular offences of larceny, burglary, forgery, &c., see glary, forgery, &c. those titles.

Corporation. Where the property stolen or injured belongs to a Corporation. corporation, it must be laid to be the property of the corporation in their corporate name, and not in the names of the individuals who compose it. (2 East's P. C. 1059; 1 Leach, 253). There is some difference, however, in this respect, between an ancient corporation and one newly created : an ancient corporation may by use have a special name, differing in substance from that by which they were originally incorporated, and they may plead and be impleaded by that name; but a corporation created within memory must plead and be impleaded by the name by which they were incorporated. (Hob, 211; Noy, 54; 2 Brownl. 292; Latch, 229; Bagg's case, 11 Co. 94; Dy. 279: R. v. Sir Robert Atkins, 3 Mod. 6; Vaughan v. Bedford, Cro. Èl. 351; Bac, Abr. Corp. (C3). And see 10 Co. 87 ; 1 Leach, 513). Where, by a local act, 24 Geo. IIÍ. c. 15, certain inhabitants in seven parishes were incorporated by the name of “the guardians of the poor of those parishes,” and the property belonging to the corporation was vested in certain directors for the time being, the judges held, upon an indictment for embezzling the monies of the corporation, that they should have been laid as the monies of the guardians of the poor by their corporate name, or of the directors for the time being in their individual names. (R. v. Beacall, R. & M. C. C. 15, Vide Sherington and Bulkley's case, 1 Leach, C. C. 513).

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Poian, List On , Companies, Se7-Various statutes have been p remedy the difficulty experienced in describing the names of i wnes i ze çerty. TI F : Ver IV. c. 64, s. 14, "to remove the difficulty of stating

mes the owners of property in the case of partners and other jiet over it is enacted, "that, in any indictment or information fer 2T 2ICT zidaneanour, wherein it shall be requisite to state the

E: suy property whatsoever, whether real or personal, which See .ng too be in the possession of, more than one person, whetber

such resoos be partners in trade, joint-tenants, parceners, or tenants in o d o; it shall be sufficient to name one of such persons, and to state

och property to belong to the person so named and another or others, a the case may be; and whenever, in any indictment or information for LT feiony or misdemeanour, it shall be necessary to mention, for any purpose wastebere, any partners, joint-tenants, parceners, or tenants in a s it shall be sufficient to describe them in the manner aforesaid; på this provision shall be construed to extend to all joint-stock compe

Now, therefore, benever, in an indictment or information, either for faar or misdemeanour, it is necessary to state the ownership of preperts, real or personal, if it belong to partners, joint-tenants, parcek, or tenants in common, it is sufficient to lay it as the property of “ A. B. and another," or as the property of “ A. B. and others;" and this propie sica also extends to all cases where it is necessary to mention such pel sons for any purpose in any indictment or information. And, which highly important, this enactment extends to joint-stock companies, many of which are not bodies corporate, and also to trustees. The far as regarded companies, was not before included in any general etic ment; although, in private acts of Parliament which related to in surance companies, &c., it was not unusual to insert a clause, that they shouid sue and be sued by their secretary, and that their property should be laid, in indictments, &c., as belonging to him. (See Can CL).

The words of the statute are "another or others;" and, therefore, where a prisoner was indicted for stealing paper, the property of Georze byre and others, and it appeared in evidence that the paper was the property of George Eyre and another only, viz. Andrew Strahan, his partner, the prisoner was acquitted. (Per Denman, Com. Seri.. R. v. Harp, Greene. Col. Sat. 143). But it is not necessary that a strict legal part nership should exist. Where C. and D. carried on business in partner ship, and the widow of C,, upon his death, without taking out scan stration, acted as partner, and the stock was afterwards divided between her and the surviving partner, but, before the division, part of the stack was stolen; it was holden, that the goods were properly described as joint property of the surviving partner and the widow, upon ang tion that the children of C. ought to have been joined, or the goods or scribed as the property of the surviving partner and the ordinary, nos ministration having been taken out. (R. v. Gabey, R. & R. 178). AB where a father and son took a farm on their joint account, and kept stock of sheep, their joint property, and upon the death of the son un father carried on the business for the joint benefit of himself and his son, children, who were infants, it was holden, upon an indictment for stea ing sheep bred from the joint stock, some before and some after 10 death of the son, that the property was well laid in the father and De son's children. (R. v. Scott, R. & R. 13: 2 East, P. C. 655). In an indictment for stealing a Bible, a hymn-book, &c., from a Methods chapel, the goods were laid as the property of John Bennett and others, and it appeared that J. Bennett was one of the society, and a trustet the chapel: Parke, J., held that the property was laid correctly Bennett. (R. v. Boulton, 5 C. & P.537; Jero. Arch. C. L., 9th edit.,

In indictments or informations by or on behalf of joint-stock banki

co-partnerships, for stealing or embezzling money, goods, effects, bills, 8. Particular notes, securities, or other property belonging to them, or for any fraud, requisites and forgery, crime, or offence committed against or with intent to injure or parts. defraud such co-partnerships, the money, &c. may be stated to be the property of, and the intent may be laid to defraud, any one of the public Officers of such co-partnerships; and the name of any one of their public officers may be used in all indictments or informations where it otherwise would be necessary to name the persons forming the company. (7 Geo. IV. c. 46, s. 9). It has been doubted, whether, upon an indictment by a joint-stock bank for forgery, the intent must not be laid to defraud a public officer of such co-partnership; (R. v. Burgess, 7 C. & P. 490); but the better opinion seems to be that this statute is cumulative merely, (R. v.James, 7 C. & P. 553), and that the prosecutor may at his option describe the property, or lay the intent, according to this statute, or the stat. 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, s. 14, or the stat. 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 66, s. 28, by which it is sufficient in any indictment for forgery to name one person only, where the intent is to defraud a company, society, or number of persons, and to allege the offence to have been committed with intent to defraud the person so named, and another or others, as the case may be. (Jerv. Arch. C. L., 9th edit., 33).

Counties, Inhabitants, 80.7–With respect to the description of the Counties, inha owner of property belonging to a county or division, it is enacted, by 7 bitants, &c. Geo. IV. c. 64, s. 15, “that, in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanour committed in, upon, or with respect to any bridge, court, gaol, house of correction, infirmary, asylum, or other puilding erected or maintained, in whole or in part, at the expense of any ounty, riding, or division, or on or with respect to any goods or chatels whatsoever, provided for or at the expense of any county, riding, or livision, to be used for making, altering, or repairing any bridge, or any highway at the ends thereof, or any court or other such building as foresaid, or to be used in or with any such court or other building, it hall be sufficient to state any such property, real or personal, to belong o the inhabitants of such county, riding, or division, and it shall not be lecessary to specify the names of any of such inhabitants." In all hese cases it is now sufficient, under this act, to lay the property in the inhabitants” of the county, riding, or division, without naming ny of them.

Parishes, Toronships, &c. 1–With respect to the description of the Parish, township, wner of property belonging to a parish, township, or place, the stat. 7 &c. leo. IV. c. 64, s. 16, enacts, “that, in any indictment or information or any felony or misdemeanour committed in, upon, or with respect to ay workhouse or poor-house, or on or with respect to any goods or chatIs whatsoever, provided for the use of the poor of any parish or pashes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, or to e used in any workhouse or poor-house in or belonging to the same, or y the master or mistress of such workhouse or poor-house, or by any orkmen or servants employed therein, it shall be sufficient to state any Ich property to belong to the overseers of the poor, for the time being, of ich parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place

places, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of all or ay of such overseers; and in any indictment or information for any lony or misdemeanour committed on or with respect to any materials, ols, or implements provided for making, alteriug, or repairing any ighway within any parish, township, hamlet, or place, otherwise than y the trustees or commissioners of any turnpike road, it shall be suffient to aver that any such things are the property of the surveyor or troeyors of the highways, for the time being, of such parish, township, amlet, or place, and it shall not be necessary to specify the name or ames of any such surveyor or surveyors."

8. Particular In R. v. Went, (R. & R. 359), the prisoner was charged with stealrequisites and ing provisions in a workhouse: they were laid as the “goods, chatteis parts. and property of the overseers of the poor, for the time being, of the parze

. of K. aforesaid ;” and the judges held that this was proper, and the ciently imported, that, at the time of the theft, the goods were the pa perty of the then overseers of the poor.

But where a local act incorporates certain inhabitants of certaines rishes by a certain title, although, according to the act, a number & c rectors are to be appointed, and the property of the corporation vertel a them, still property stolen or embezzled must be laid in the compan name, or in the directors for the time being, in their individual nies.

(R. v. Beacall, R. & M. C. C. 15). Guardians of poor. Guardians of Poor.]-By 5 & 6 Will. IV.c. 69, s. 7, the guardians ?

the poor of every union formed by virtue of the 4 & 5 Will. IV.c.76,
of every parish placed under the control of a board of guardians by virt
of that act, are made a corporation, by the name of the “Guardians et ca
Poor of the — Union [or, of the Parish of —], in the County of —
and, as such corporation, are empowered to accept, take, and boile
the benefit of the union or parish, any buildings, land, or hereditae;"*
goods, effects, or other property; and by that name to bring acties
prefer indictments, &c.; and in every such action or indictment reason
to any such property, it shall be sufficient to lay or state the proper,
be that of the guardians of the union, or of the parish of

The Poor Law Commissioners may be described in an indictmed :

their style of office. (R.v. Crossley, 2 P.& D. 319). Turnpike trust.

Turnpike Trustees, 8c.]–With respect to the description : owners of property belonging to a turnpike trust, it is enace? stat. 7 Geo. IV.c. 64, s. 17, “ that, in any indictment or informa* any felony or misdemeanour committed on or with respect to 37 building, gate, machine, lamp, board, stone, post, fence, or disse erected or provided in pursuance of any act of Parliament for any turnpike road, or any of the conveniences or appartenance unto respectively belonging, or any materials, tools, or impleme vided for making, altering, or repairing any such road, it shail des cient to state any such property to belong to the trustees or sioners of such road, and it shall not be necessary to specify the man any of such trustees or commissioners.” We have already madrakom

comments on this provision, ante, tits. Highways, Turnpike." Commissioners of Commissioners of Sewers.]-With respect to the description : sewers.

owners of property in or under the management of commise
sewers, by the statute 7 Geo. IV.c. 64, s. 18, it is enacted, that, in
indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanour
on or with respect to any sewer or other matter within or unde
view, cognizance, or management of any commissioners of
shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the
sioners of sewers within or under whose view, cognizance, or
ment any such things shall be, and it shall not be necessary to

the names of any of such commissioners.” Chelsea Hospital.

Chelsea Hospital.]-With respect to the description of the open property belonging to Chelsea Hospital, by the 7 Geo. IV.ck in indictments for stealing or embezzling any property belonging hospital, the property is to be laid in the Lords and others, Ceci sioners of the Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea, in the Coca Middlesex;" and the same section contains a similar provision N

ing frauds by personating, &c., and forgeries relative to this hosper Public service Public Service.)-Monies or valuable securities embezzled by p

in the public service may be described as the property of the Que

« PreviousContinue »