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/ssactsengr0999 and id is 1 raw text is: DE TERM. PASC. 8 GEo. Ii.
notice, that in this verdict the words then and there immediately are not coupled
in the same clause or sentence with the words preceding; but it is a distinct clause,
and a separate finding.
The Court of King's Bench (pursuant to this opinion of the majority of the Judges)
held, that the defandants ought to be discharged of this indictment. Then a question
arising, whether the defendants ought to be discharged out of custody? It was held
that they should not, but that they should be remanded; for though no robbery is
found by the verdict, yet it appears that they are guilty of grand larceny, for which
no judgment can be given upon this indictment; for this differs from burglary and
other cases, where the prisoner may be acquitted of the burglary and found guilty of
the felony; but here the offence is laid to be a robbery in taking a persona; and that
being the only doubt of the jury, the Court cannot give judgment against them upon
this indictment, but must discharge them as to it, and remand them in order to be tried
upon a new indictment for the grand larceny.
(1) Judge Foster in his Crown Law says, that the want of this circumstance alone,
namely the being put in fear, ought not to be regarded. I am not clear, continues the
Judge, that that circumstance is of necessity to be laid in the indictment, so as the fact
be charged to be done violenter et contra voluntatem. I know there are opinions in
the books which seem to make the circumstance of fear necessary ; but I have seen a
good MS. note of an opinion of Lord Holt to the contrary ; and I am very clear, that
the circumstance of actual fear at the time of the robbery needeth not to be strictly
proved, &c. p. 128. 1 Hale, P. C. 534. 4 Bl. Com. 243. 1 Hawk. P. C. 149, in
note.
(a)' 1 Kel. 119. 9 St. Tr. p. 61.
(2) So in the special verdict in Oaeby's case, the word immediately is used four
different times to different purposes. 2 Str. 766. 2 Lord Raym. 1485. 9 St. Tr. p. 17.
(a)2 St. 27 Eliz. c. 13, s. 11. Vet. Intr. 218. Co. Ent. 348. Rast. Ent. 406.
Clift. Ent. 378. Her. pl. 214.
(3) The words in the statute are, Except the same person or persons so robbed
shall with as much convenient speed as may be give notice, &c.
CASE 211. ATTORNEY GENERAL vers. PERRY. INTR. IN SCACC. PASCH. 7 GEo. 2,
ROT. 29.
Money received for the drawback of goods and merchandize, not fairly exported
according to the statute, is liable to the King's demand, though in the hands of
a third person not particeps criminis.
This was an information by the Attorney General for 6231. 14s. 3d. halfpenny,
due to His Majesty for so much money received by the defendant for His late Majesty's
use, between April the 1st, 1725, and the 1st of September following.
The defendant pleads, that he is not indebted for the said sum.
[482] Upon a trial by a jury of Middlesex, they find specially to the effect follow-
ing, viz. that on the 24th of September 1724, the defendant imported into the port
of London 28,333 pounds weight of Virginia tobacco, and paid custom for the same,
viz. 881. 10s. 9d. halfpenny for the old subsidy, and gave security by bond to pay
5351. 3s. 6d. halfpenny for the additional duties due to His late Majesty on importa-
tion of the said tobacco. That in May 1725, the defendant sold the said tobacco to
Richard Corbet, for exportation to Cadiz in Spain, and shipped off the same in the
port of London in the ship called the Francis and Mary, Isaac Cocart, master, for
Cadiz. That on the 14th of July 1725, Richard Corbet made oath before the proper
officer, that he had the direction of the said voyage, and that all the said tobacco so
shipped was exported really and truly for parts beyond the seas, on commission, and
that none of the said tobacco had been since landed, or was intended to be relanded
in Great Britain or Ireland.
That John Walkley, the defendant's servant, made the usual oath, that the duty
of the said tobacco was paid or secured, and that the defendant had sold it for
exportation. That on the 5th of June 1725, a declaration of the contents of the
1169
2 OMYNS, 982.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0999&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)