The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-20 00:00:00

QUEEN V. SARAH WATERS.

The prisoner, in this case, was found guilty of having.
caused the death of an infant illegitimate child of
which she had been delivered. It appeared that she
placed the child upon a heap of ashes, and left it there
exposed, by which exposure its death was occasioned.
There were two questions reserved by Mr. Baron Rolle,
who tried the case, but the only one upon which the ar-
gument turned was whether the age of the child had
been properly described in the indictment, it being al
leged that, in order t. prove that leaving exposed upon
the ashes was an unlawful act, it was necessary t) show
that the child was of tender age.
Mr. CLARKE. ho appeared on the part of the
Crown (the prisoner was unrepresented) contende a.
that' the age of the person was immaterial so long
as it was alleged that the act done had been the cause of
his death.

Mr. Baron ALDERSON said, if the party were twenty
wars of age it would not be unlawful to leave him 50
exposed, although it would be unlawful teaknock him
down. But if the party were of tender years, for in-
stance, an infant, the act alleged would have been ilk-
gal, and therefore it was necessary that the age should
be stated.

The Court, however, took time to consider their de.
cision.

QUEEN V. ROBERT WYNNE.
The defendant in tbis case was in the service of the
Post-office, and was found guilty at the Old Bailey of
secreting certain letters belonging to the Postmaster-
General.
Mr. Ballantyne appeared on behalf of the appellant, a
point of law having been reserved by Mr. Baron Platt,
who tried the case, for the decision of this Court. There
were two counts to the indictment, one charging with
stealing, and the other with secreting, and the jury found
that the defendant having committed a mistake whilst
sorting the letters, secreted them in a water-closet, in
order to avoid the penalty which such a mistake might
subject him to. The question, therefore, was, whether
this verdict amounted to the act of stealing; and the
I
Learned Counsel coAterAd that could not, and that it
simply amounted to an act of aiifiittractive Larceny. The
property was in the honest possession of the prisoner,
and it did not appear that the secreting was with the
intention of taking the entire dominion over the pro-
perty, out of the hands of the Post-office authorities.
Supposing, for instance, a servant were to take a book
from a library, and having injured or defaced it, were
to put it into the fire to prevent its being found out;
would it not be an unusual stretch of the law to find
him guilty of larceny?
Mr. Baron ALDER3ON—There is no doubt about it
being a secreting, and I have a strong opinion that it is
a stealing also.--(Laughter.)
Mr. BALLANTYNE apprehended, however, 'that there
was no lucri causi in the case, because it could not be
imputed from the term " secreting " that he intended to
destroy the properiy or to separate the possession of it
entirely from the owner. _ _

Lord Dttrustax said the Act of Parliament applied to
persons who .had dealings with. Post-office letters, and
who had a most important trust reposed in them, placing
at times almost-all the property ot the country in their
hands, and, therefore, they were not placed in the posi-
tion of ordinary thieves and robbers. If a letter were
secreted for any purpose whatever, it amounted to
larceny; and it appeared to him that the indictment was
perfectly good under the statute, and that the stealing
had been satisfactorily proved.
The other Judges concurring, the conviction was af-
firmed.

QUEEN V. ALLEN.
In this case, which had been reserved by Mr. Baron
Rolfe, the Court decided that the conviction was good.

QUEEN V. HOLLOWAY.

The Court, in this case, which was reserved from the
last Liverpool Sessions, were of opinion that there was
no larceny committed by the defendant.
The conviction was, therefore, annulled.