HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0155 and id is 1 raw text is: a, R. & C;. 6.13
wler each count, is as it were, a separate [643] indictment, one count not having been
dispos, I of no more affects the proceedings with crror than if there were two indict-
ments. it O'Connell v. The Quec. (II Cl. & F. 155), which has been referred to,
Parke B. says, p. 296-7, So in respect of those counts ott which the jury have acted
incorrectly, by finding persons guilty of two offences (un a count charging only one),
if the Grown did not obviate the objection, by entering a nolle prosequi as to one of
the offences, Rex v. Hcmpstead (R. & iR. C. C. 344), and so in effect removing that
from the indictment, the Court ought to have granted a venire de novo on those
counts, in order to have a proper finding; and then upon the good counts it should
have proceeded to pronounce. the proper judgment. In short, I should have said that
the defendaltt should oil tile face of the record be put precisely in the same condition
as f the oevural counts had formed the subject of several itdietments. That is
exactly what I say here. Each count is in fact and theory a separate indictment, and
no authority has been produced to show that we ought to defeat the ends of justice
by such a technical error as this.
As to the second question. The second count of this indictment, on which the
defendants have heen convicted, is for a conspitacy, charging that they, being evil
disposed persons, and contriving and intending to defraud Richard Bealey of his
money, unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly did amongst themselves combine,
conspire, confederate attd agree together by divers false pretences, against the form
of the statute it that case made atd provided, the said Richaid Bealey of his
moneys to defraud, agaitst the form of the statute &c. The object of the conspiracy
is to deftaud, contrary to the [644] form of the statute. It is argued that, as tile
Quarter Sessions cannot try a conspiracy unless it is a conspiracy to commit alt offence
which, if committed by one person, they could try ; although the Quarter Sessions can
try what we may call shortly swindling, i.e. obtaining money by false pretences with
intent to defraud, and attempts to do so; that that is not the offence charged here,
because it is not stated that the conspiracy was to obtain money, but to defraud. We
do not however, when looking at a charge'of conspiracy to commit ant offence, require
it to be set forth with all tite precision requisite in describing the offence itself; it is
enough to shew that the conspiracy is to commit an offence that could be tried at
Quarter Sessions. Here therefore, before the jury could convict of this conspiracy,
they must be satisfied that the parties had conspired to defraud by false pretences and
against the statute, anid if that was the object of the conspiracy it was an offence over
which the Quarter Sessions had jurisdiction. As to the false pretences not being
set out it the indictment, it has frequently been decided that this is not necessary.
Sydse/ff v. The Queen, in Error (I I Q. B. 245), may be taken as an example.
Shoe J. (the only other Judge present) concurred.
Judgment for the Crown.
[645] IN iE TIVNAN AND OTHERS. Wednesday, May 25th, 1861.-Interational
law. Extradition. Jurisdiction. Piracy. Belligerent Act. 6 & 7 Viet. c. 76.
Warrant of j ustice.-1. SLat. 6 & 7 Viet. c. 76, s. 1, enacts, that in case requisition
shall be made by the authority of the United States of America, in pursuance of
a. treaty hetween them and this country of the 9th August, 1812, for the delivery
up of any person charged with certain crimes thcrein specified, amottg which is
piracy, committed within the jurisdiction of the United States, who shall be
found withitn the territories of her Majesty, such person may be apprehended and
delivered upl) to justice : [kdd, by Crompton, Backbur all(l Shee JJ., dissentiente
Cockburt C.J., that piracy here must not be understood in tile setise of piracy
by the law of ntiUts, but of acts made piracy by the municipal law of the United
States.--2. lit order to enable a justice of the )c.ce to issue hi warrant under
this statute for the apprettiou and committal for trial of all accused person,
it ncl not apptear that there was ait original warrant for his apprehension in tile
United Suatus, or depoAitioos taken against him there.-3. The warrant of such
justice of the pa tee'd not allege that the evidence before him was taken utpot
oati.---4. Couttcssum. It time of tetce any act of depredation on a ship is primi'l
facie alt act, of piracy : butt i time of war betweet two countries the presumptiou
is that depredation by otc f thcm o o, Aip of the oher i3 alt act of legitimate
IN RE TIVNAN](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0155&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)