* parliament to do so (d). Statutory provisions, however, thus enab[*404] ling them are numerous, of which the more important are as follow (e): In an indictment for high treason or misprision of treason committed out of the realm, the venue may be laid in Middlesex, if the trial is to be in the court of queen's bench, or in such shire as the crown shall appoint, under a commission to try the offender (ƒ). In an indictment for compassing the death of the sovereign, or for any of the treasons mentioned in the stat. 36 Geo. 3, c. 7, s. 1, the venue may be laid in any county in which a sufficient overt act can be proved. So in an indictment for conspiracy, the venue may be laid in any county in which it can be proved that an act was done by any one of the conspirators in furtherance of their common design (g). In indictments for endeavouring to seduce soldiers or sailors from their duty, or for inciting them to mutiny, the venue may be laid in any county, whether the offence be committed on the high seas, or in England (h). And in indictments for administering or taking unlawful oaths, the venue may be laid in any county in England, whether the offence was committed on the high seas, or out of the realm, or within England (i). In indictments for burning or destroying the queen's ships, or magazines, out of the realm, the venue may be laid in any county within the realm (j). In indictments for offences relating to the post-office, * the venue [*405] may be laid either in the county or place where the offence was committed, or where the offender was apprehended or is in custody (j). In indictments for offences against statutes relating to the stamp duties, the venue may be laid either in the county where the offence was committed, or in that in which the parties accused, or any of them, were apprehended (k). And in indictments for offences against the customs committed upon the high seas, the venue may be laid in the county into which the offender has been taken (1). In indictments for resisting or assaulting officers of the excise (m), or for offences against the revenue of customs (n), the venue may be laid in any county. In indictments for offences committed by persons employed in any public service abroad, the venue may be laid in Middlesex (o); and in indictments for offences committed out of the kingdom against the Foreign Enlistment Act, the venue may be laid at Westminster (p). In an indictment for plundering or stealing any part of a ship in distress or wrecked, or any goods belonging thereto, the venue may be laid either in the county in which the offence was committed, or in a next adjoining county (q). And by the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 12, wherever a felony or misdemeanor is begun (d) Wherever a felony or misdemeanor is committed on the boundary of two or more counties, or within the distance of 500 yards of the boundary, the venue may be laid and the indictment tried in either county. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 12. (e) As to treasons, &c., committed on the high seas, within the jurisdiction of the admiralty, ante, pp. 347-9. As to felonious homicide, ante, p. 235. (f) In pursuance of stats. 26 Hen. 8, c. 13; 83 Hen. 8, c. 23; 35 Hen. 8, c. 2; and 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 11. (j) 12 Geo. 8, c. 24, s. 2. (j) 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 37. in one county and completed in another, the venue may be laid in either county, in the same manner as if it had been wholly committed therein. And if a person, having stolen or otherwise feloniously taken any chattel, money, or valuable security, or other property whatsoever, in any one part of the United Kingdom, afterwards have the same in his possession in any other part of the United Kingdom, he may be indicted for larceny in that part of the United Kingdom in which he so had the property, in the same manner * as if he had actually stolen it there (r). In an indictment for a [* 406] felony or misdemeanor committed upon any person, or on or in respect of any property, in or upon any carriage employed in any journey, or on board any vessel employed in any voyage upon any navigable river, canal, or inland navigation, the venue may be laid in any county through which the carriage or vessel shall have passed in the course of that journey or voyage, in the same manner as if the offence had been actually committed therein; and where the side, bank, centre, or other part of the highway, river, &c. shall constitute the boundary of two counties, the venue may be laid in either of the counties through or adjoining to, or by, the boundary of any part whereof the carriage or vessel may have passed in the course of the journey or voyage (s). A similar provision has been enacted as to offences committed on or in respect of mails, or persons engaged in the conveyance or delivery, of letters sent by the post (t). A receiver of property knowing the same to have been stolen, whether charged as an accessory after the fact to the felony, or with a substantive felony, or with a misdemeanor only, may be indicted in the county or place in which he has or may have had such property in his possession, or in which the person guilty of the principal felony or misdemeanor may be tried, in like manner as he may be indicted in the county or place where he actually received the property (u). If property stolen in one part of the United Kingdom be received in another, the receiver may be indicted in the latter (x); and the venue in an indictment for embezzlement by any one in the public service or in the police may be laid either in the county or place in which he was apprehended or is in custody, or in that where the offence was committed (y). *A forger may be tried either in the county or place where the offence was committed, or in that where he is apprehended or in cus[* 407 ] tody (z). And where a person utters counterfeit coin in any county or jurisdiction, and other counterfeit coin in any other county or jurisdiction on the same day, or within ten days next ensuing, or where two or more such offenders have acted in concert in different counties or jurisdictions, the venue may be laid and the offence charged to have been committed in any one of those counties or jurisdictions (a). In an indictment for libel, or for sending a threatening letter, the venue may be laid either in the county from which it was sent, or in that in which the prosecutor received it (b). In an indictment for bigamy, the venue may be laid either in the county where the offender was apprehended or is in custody (c), or in that in which the second marriage took place; and on an indictment for returning from transportation, or being illegally at large before the expiration of a term of penal servitude, the offender may be tried either in the county whence he was ordered to be transported or kept in penal servitude, or in that where he was apprehended (d). Lastly, where the court appears by the indictment to have jurisdiction over the offence charged therein, no objection could, since the stat. 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 20, be taken otherwise than by demurrer (e) for the want of a proper or perfect venue; and no indictment is now held to be insufficient on this ground (ƒ), nor need the venue stated in the margin be repeated in the body of the indictment unless where local description is required in setting forth the offence (g). *When the grand jury have heard the evidence, if they think the [* 408] accusation groundless, they used formerly to indorse on the back of the bill, "ignoramus;" or, we know nothing of it; intimating, that though the facts might possibly be true, that truth did not appear to them: but now, they assert in English, more absolutely, "no true bill;" and then the party is discharged without further answer. But a fresh bill may afterwards be pre ferred to a subsequent grand jury. If, on the other hand, the grand jury are satisfied of the truth of the accusation, they then indorse upon the bill, "a true bill;" anciently, "billa vera.” The indictment is then said to be found, and the party stands indicted. But to find a bill there must at least twelve of the jury agree: for so tender is the law of England of the life or liberty of the subject, that no man can be convicted at suit of the crown of any indictable offence, unless by the unanimous voice of twenty-four of his equals and neighbours; that is, by twelve at least of the grand jury, in the first place, assenting to the accusation; and afterwards, by the whole petit jury, of twelve more, finding him guilty, upon his trial. But if twelve of the grand jury assent, it is a good presentment, though some of the rest disagree (h). And the indictment, when found, is publicly delivered into court. The indictment must have a precise and sufficient certainty (i), and must contain such a description of the crime charged-1st. That the defendant may know what it is that he is called upon to answer; 2ndly. That the jury may appear to be satisfied in their conclusion of "guilty" or "not guilty" upon the premises delivered to them; 3rdly. That the court may see such a definite crime that they may apply to it the punishment which the law prescribes (k). Of these reasons-all weighty and * unanswerable-the first is per[* 409] haps the strongest. The convenience of mankind imperatively demands-and in furtherance of that convenience it is part of the duty of those who administer justice to require-that the charge should be specifically set forth in the indictment, in order that notice may thus be given to the accused person of what he is to come prepared to answer, and to prevent his being distracted-amidst the confusion of a multifarious and complicated transaction, parts of which only are meant to be impeached (1). MODES OF PROSECUTION. The offence itself, whether existing at common law or constituted by statute, must therefore be set forth with clearness and certainty; so that in the one case the essential ingredients in it may be apparent, and in the other the material words used by the legislature in describing it may be exhibited. In setting forth some crimes, moreover, particular words of art must be used, which are so appropriated by our law to express the precise idea which it entertains of the offence charged, that no other words, however synonymous they may seem, are accounted capable of doing it. Thus, in treason, the facts. must be laid to be done by the accused "traitorously and against his allegiance;" anciently, "proditorie et contra ligeantiæ suæ debitum:" else the indictment is void. In indictments for murder, it is necessary to say that the party indicted "murdered," not "killed" or "slew," the other; which was formerly expressed in Latin by the word "murdravit." In an indictment for felony, the adverb "feloniously," "felonice," must be used; and for burglary, also "burglariter," or in English, "burglariously:" and these to ascertain the intent. In an indictment for rape, the word "rapuit," or "ravished," is necessary, and must not be expressed by any periphrasis; in order to render the crime certain. So in an indictment for larceny, the words "felonice cepit et *asportavit," "feloniously took and carried away," are necessary; for these [*410] only can express the very offence of stealing. Further, the indictment must state the facts of the crime with as much certainty as the nature of the case will admit (m). And the offence charged therein must be positively averred, not stated by way of recital (n) or in the disjunctive (o). Repugnancy, moreover, in a material matter, may be fatal to the indictment (p). Again, it is a well founded rule that there must be on the face of every indictment a distinct intimation to the person to be tried whether the offence with which he stands charged is a felony or a misdemeanor. The indictment for a felony therefore must allege that the act charged was done "feloniously" (2). Neither should a count for felony be joined with a count for misdemeanor in the indictment; nor should criminal acts separate from each other and distinct in kind though referable, may be, to the same general class of felonies or misdemeanors, be joined in the same indictment (r). A joinder of counts in an indictment may, however, sometimes be proper, and is in certain cases expressly allowed by statute. Thus, in an indictment for larceny, several counts may be inserted for distinct acts of stealing, not exceeding three, which may have been committed by the accused against the [* 411] same person within the space of six months from the first to the last of such acts, and the prosecutor may proceed thereon for all or * (m) R. v. Hollond, 5 T. R. 611, et seq. Therefore, an indictment charging the defendant with obtaining money by false pretences, without stating what were the particular pretences, is insufficient. (R. v. Mason, 2 T. R. 581.) There are, however, some exceptions to the above general rule. (Id. 585, 586.) (n) R. v. Crowhurst, 2 Ld. Raym. 1363. (p) R. v. Stevens, 5 East, 244. (g) Reg. v. Gray, L. & C. 365, 371. (r) In the Remarks on the Trial of Stephen Colledge, by Sir John Hawles, Solicitor-General under William III. (8 St. Tr. 729), we read, two capital crimes of different natures, as murder and robbery, or treason and misdemeanor, cannot be joined in one indictment. See Reg. v. Heywood, L. & C. 451; Reg. v. Ferguson, Dearsl. 427; Young v. R.,3 T. R. 106, 108. any of them (s). So a count for feloniously receiving property knowing it to have been stolen, may be joined with a count for stealing the same property (t). The rule which requires certainty in an indictment having been so strictly applied as often to defeat the ends of justice, some useful statutory provisions have been enacted whereby the frame of the indictment, as well generally as in regard to various specific offences, has been much abbreviated and simplified. No indictment is now held insufficient for want of the averment of matter unnecessary to be proved, nor for the omission of various words and phrases which have usually found place therein, nor for omitting to state the time at which the offence charged was committed, in any case where time is not of the essence of the offence, nor for want of the statement of the value or price of anything or the amount of damage, injury, or spoil in any case where not essential to the constitution of the particular offence (u). Variances between the allegations in the indictment and the proofs adduced at the trial, are, as shown in the next chapter, in many cases amendable, and any objection to the indictment grounded upon defect of form must, if at all, be taken at the proper time (a). In an indictment for murder or manslaughter, or for being an accessory to either of these offences, it is no longer necessary, as formerly, to set forth the manner in which or the means by which the death of the deceased was caused (y), the indictment for felonious homicide (z) thus being rendered brief and *freed from the possibility of error. And the [* 412] indictment for each of the following offences:-Stealing any document of title to land (a), or any record or other legal document (b), larceny or embezzlement by any one in her majesty's service, or in the police (c), larceny by a tenant or lodger (d), obtaining any chattel, money, or valuable security by a false pretence (e), and forgery (f), has likewise been materially simplified. [* 413] Such are the several methods of prosecution (g) * instituted by the (f) As regards the description of the instrument forged, see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, ss. 42, 43. (g) Until the stat. 59 Geo. 3, c. 46, another such method existed called an appeal (derived from the French "appeller" the verb active, which signifies to call upon, summon, or challenge one; and not the verb neuter, which signifies the same as the ordinary sense of "appeal" in English). An appeal when spoken of as a criminal prosecution, denoted an accusation by one private subject against another, for some heinous crime; demanding punishment on account of the particular injury suffered, rather than for the offence against the public. This private process, for the punishment of public crimes, had probably its origin in those times when a private pecuniary satisfaction, called a weregild, was paid to the party injured, or his relations, to expiate any enormous offence. This was a custom derived to us, in common with other northern nations (Stiernh. de Jure Sueon. 1. 3, c. 4) from our ancestors, the ancient Germans; among whom, according to Tacitus (De M. G. c. 21) "luitur homicidium certo armentorum ac pecorum numero; recipitque satisfactionem universa domus." And in another place (c. 12), "Delictis, pro modo pœnarum, equorum pecorumque numero convicti mulctantur. Pars mulcta regi vel civitati; pars ipsi qui vindicatur, vel propinquis ejus, exsolvitur." As during the continuance of this custom, a process was certainly given, for recovering the weregild by the party to whom it was due; it seems that, when offences by degrees grew no longer redeemable, the private process was still continued, in order to insure the |