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/ssactsengr0582 and id is 1 raw text is: 754
REGINA V. VINCENT
9 CAR. & P. 91
Alderson, B.-The words of the Act of Parliament are, for any fraudulent
purpose destroy or conceal any will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument. The
purpose ought, I think, to be stated in the indictment, which here it is not (a). But
I think also that if the defendant concealed this will, and took the money which
ought to have gone to Mrs. Apperley and Elisha Cooper's children, to pay Mr.
Rowland's debts, that would be a fraudulent purpose within the Act of Parliament.
On the part of the prosecution evidence was given with a view of shewing that
the defendant took away the will , but the case ultimatey turned on the credit the
jury gave to some of the most important parts of the evidence.
Verdict-Not guilty.
C. Phillips and F. V. Lee, for the prosecution.
Talfourd, Serjt., and Greaves, for the defendant.
[Attornies-Jennings & Turner, and Bodenham.]
[91] August 2nd, 1839.
REGINA V. VINCENT, EDWARDS, DRINKWATER AND TOWNSEND.
(Any meeting assembled under such circumstances as, according to the opinion of
rational and firm men, are likely to produce danger to the tranquillity and peace
of the neighbourhood, is an unlawful assembly ; and in viewing this question,
the jury should take into their consideration the hour at which the parties met,
and the language used by the persons assembled, and by those who addressed
them, and then consider whether firm and rational men, having their fanilies
and property there, would have reasonable ground to fear a breach of the peace ;
as the alarm must not be merely such as would frighten any foolish or timid
person, but must be such as would alarm persons of reasonable firmness and
courage. The calling of a witness, whose name is on the back of the indictment
for the other side, to cross-examine him, is by no means of course. It is dis-
cretionary even in felony, but it is a discretion always exercised, and it seems
that the same discretion may well be exercised in misdemeanor. If persons
duly called upon by the magistrates to serve as special constables refuse to do
so, the magistrates ought to cause them to be indicted.)
[S. C. 3 St. Tr. (N. S.) 1037. Referred to, R. v. O'Connell, 1844, 5 St. Tr.
(N. S.) 1 ; OKelly v. Harvey, 1883, 15 Cox, C. C. 435.]
The first count of the indictment stated that the defendants, being seditious and
evil-disposed persons, intending to disturb the public peace and to excite discontent
and disaffection, and to excite her Majesty's subjects to hatred and contempt of the
government and constitution of this realm, heretofore, to wit, on &c., at &c., did
conspire &c., together with divers other persons unknown, unlawfully, maliciously,
and seditiously to meet and assemble themselves together, and to cause and procure
a great number of other l)ersons unlawfully, maliciously, and seditiously to meet and
assemble themselves together with the said H. V., W. E., J. D., & W. A. T., and the
other conspirators at N. aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, for the purpose of excit-
ing discontent and disaffection in the lninds of the liege subjects of our said Lady the
Queen, and for the purpose of moving and exciting the liege subjects of our said Lady
the Queen to hatred and contempt of the government and constitution of this realm
as by law established.
The second count was similar, but stated as anm overt act of conspiracy that the
conspirators assembled at Newport on the 19th of April, 1839, to the number of
2000 and more, in a menacing manner with offensive weapons, and did cause great
terror and alarm to the peaceable and well-disposed subjects of her Majesty.
The third count was in the following form : And the jurors aforesaid upon their
(a) It is worthy of consideration whether this objection would be aided after
verdict under tile stat. 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, s. 21, by which it is enacted, that where
the offence charged has been created by any statute, or subjected to a greater degree
of punishment by any statute, or excluded the benefit of clergy by any statute, the
indictment or information shall, after verdict, be held sufficient to warrant the
punishment prescribed by tile statute if'it describe the offence in the words of the
statute. If it be within this statute, the objection seems to be only available on
demurrer. See on this point the cases of Rex v. Harris, ante, vol. vii. p. 429; the case
of Reqina v. Casper, post ; and the case of Martin v. Regina, in Error, 3 N. & P. 472.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0582&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)