The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-18 00:00:00

lop 416
714 6, k
, r
4, 40
•

CRIMINAL APPEALS—( TH IS DAY)
(In the Exchequer Chamber, before the LORD CHIEF
JUSTICE of the Common Plena, Mr. Justice ParrEsoN,
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL, Mr. Justice &LK, and Mr.
Baron MARTIN.)
QUEEN V. NORM= REALM.

In this case, in which the defendant was found guilty,
at the Central Criminal Court, of attempting to obtain
good 4 under false pretences, from John Baddeley and
others,

The COURT affirmed the conviction.
QUEEN v. DAWSON.
The prisoner, Frederick Augustus Dawson, vras in-
dicted and ccnvicted at the Central Criminal Court for
e r4ery.
It appeared at the trial that the prisoner uttered a docu-
ment which purported to be a genuine one, for the pur-
pose of obtaining the sum of 9i. from John Live. The
document was a bill-head of the ordinary kind, showing
on the face of it that John Lave was indebted to Frances
Dawson in two bushels of apples of the value of 95., and
there was appended to the end of it a note to the following
effect, purporting to be written by Mrs. Frances Daw-
son :—" Sir,—l hope you will excuse ire asking for such
a trifle, but I have received a lawyer's letter this morn-
log, and unless I make up a certain sum of money by
one o'clock an action will be brought against me, and I
am, therefore, obliged to hunt after every shilling."
This paper was described in one count of the indictment
as an order, and in two others as a warrant, and the
question reserved for the opinion of this court was,
whether that was a proper description of such written
paper under the statute.
Mr. RIP, who was heard in support of the appeal and
against the conviction, contended that the document
was neither a warrant nor an order, but a simple request,
which the party might or might not obey. The statute
seemed to contemplate an offence of this kind, for it
mentioned a warrant-order or request; and the meaning
of penal statutes ought to be strictly construed according
to the terms employed. In using the words warrant and
order, the Legislature no doubt intended that they
should not travel beyond the ordinary meaning which
in commercial dealings were attached to such terms.
The necessaryingredient of a warrant or order was
this:—lt must be drawn by a party who had authority
to do so, and addressed to a party who was bound to
obey it. Now, the party to whom this document was
given was not bound to pay the amount, for it might so
happen that he kept a running account with Mrs. Daw-
son, or had three months' credit. Another distinguishing
quality of a warrant was, that the party obeying it,
had a sufficient indemnity of the consequences of his act,
because if a civil action was afterwards brought to reco-
ver the amount, the production of the document would
be a sufficient defence to the action. In the present case,
however, the document, supposing it was a genuine one,
would not show that the request it contained bad been
complied with, and therefore would not be a good de-
fence against the claim, without some other additional
evidence that the money had been paid. On these
grounds he contended that the indictment was bad under
the statute, and that the conviction ought to be quashed.
The LORD- CHIEF JusncE—l think, if this were a
genuine order, and the party paid the money, he would
afterwards have a good defence to any further claim
should he happen :o be in possession of the document. I
am of opinion, therefore, that this is clearly a warrant or
order, and that the conviction ought to be affirmed.
Conviction affirmed accordingly.
QUEEN V. It. C. BIRD AND SARAH BIRD.

The prisoners in this case were convicted of assault at
the last Exeter assizes, having previously been acquitted
on the higher charge of murder, and an appeal was sub-
sequently made to this Court to quash the conviction,
but the judges before whom the appeal was argued did
not agree in opinion, and no decision was given.
Their Lordships now intimated that the case would
be heard before all the judges on Saturday the 25th of
Janntry.