Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-06-05

Ill
and malciously furnishing certain French pri-
,oners. whose names were unknown, Then being
under the Kings protection in Eastwood Hos
pitaL 500 lbs Of unwholesome bread, whereby
they became injured in their healh-to the
great damage Of the prisoners, the Giscreuil OF
the King, the evil example, SC. and against the
peace.
The objection was, that il did not appear
that what was done was in breach Of any con
trac, ,uith the public, or OF any moral or ciVi
duty. This objection was overruied; but II does
not appear upon what ground; nor is IL maze
rial; because the case is cited Tor the PrinciP'e
admiled in the objection; which principe IS
that if it had been in fraud OF contract win
the public, the indictment would have oreh
good. 1t may have been supporle on the prih
| chile which we have assumed, that fraud
which is to The injury Of an iudehnl'e number
| Of persons, who have no separate individual
cause Of complaint, is indiciable al common
| law. ge
| Such was the case in 9 Gritty Grim. Law,
$50, $50. against a baker, for delivering bread,
short in ,Ueighi, under a contract with the liuar-
| dians of the Poor Of Norwich " To The great
damage and prejudice OF The city oil Norwich
| and the liberties thereof for whose use, suste-
| nance. and supDort the said loavcs OF bread
were so made aud delivered as ator' said -
Here the immediate Injury was done to sort
Of public a quasi pubic-'hr poor OF The ci'y:
an Indefinite number Of persons, who, iudivi-
| duallv, could not prosecute, unless Tor separate
and individual injury actually received, as IN
the case Of public nuisance
Coi,ty in his no'e 10 This cssA says MS
indictment for non delivery Of bre ID Of ST. icient
weight, was setlled on The dec, 'ed opinion of
veIy experienced barrisier, that the Off nee
| ;nIic ahl he, urOupU 2.
p. G. 2Sl. l82l) that all frauds affecting ne
public al large, are indIctable, though atsing
out of particular Transaction ur contract"
The a,e Of Dixon in Maue and ). ! ! was
70, furnishing unwhol'some breed tor The chill
d,en al The Roy Military Asylum at Chelsea.
This was an udic men al Common Law, and
had three ingrr lien 5, either OF which was sui
fcicnt 10 support il; VIZ: Isl, thatli w's iraoo
upon the Guscrnmrn', the hS'lum oelhg d
Royal in>i u ION. 2d v, that II wa>to the injury
of an indefinite number f children who were
supported ii Tue A ylun,--an sly, that the
means used, viz: S lung Of urwhoesome bread,
were such as wee Likely To MUIR tue pubic
q a, large No question was made vile her II
j wa, NOT AN off nee Commoi' Law.
! In Poweli's case, Dallas AZ, the principle
lis more Hearty recognised oy the Supreme
Cour, of Prnusyl, aniu. 1t VS. indie
The Amy Of ht United States for cheat in
baking . 10 barrels of bread and marking hem
as Weighing SO pounds each, whit reas they
weighed only 6S pounds II was OBJECTED hat
such fraud was nol indie able a. Commoa Law
But hr Conr said ma This was clea'ly an
. injurv 10 The Public; and The fraud The moe ca
sily perDetra,ed since was the custom 20
lbs asrrs 81 bres lre RaIksa Mslg n
, deed, could mol BY Common prudence prevent
the FIR I'D, as he Def I'd mi himself was the Of.
icer Of the Public, pro hac vice. Trey were,
therefore, Of opinion thai The off, nee was in
dictahe." Here il was CvidCn' that the ground
upon which he Indictment was sustained was
the injury TO the Pubic.
so in the case # Rex VS. Bpmbridge & Pow
ell, (cited in Eas' 1867 "who were indicted
Tor enabling p rsons to pass their accounts
with The paw off in such way as to enable
them 10 deirand The Government; i, WIS OBI cled,
that IL was only private mater Of &C count, and
not indict,alr; bu, h. Court held otherwise,
as 1t rented TO The Public recenue."
! In B'owns's case, IS Chi,iv, 7Ol) The indict,
menl was agans o'rrseer Of OF the Poor Of
The Parish OF rwi kenham. for fraudulenIly
apply ing to his own use money received by him
for the parishnners, and rendering false &C
counts to conceal ne fraud, "io The damage and
! WP0ce'tSnVenl 9 me Sdd pd''Shioners
This was fraud upon an Indefinite number
OF persons who could not Individually ob ain
re'ress. (Sre also Martins case, 3 Chluy,
Crim. Law, 7o4
o her cases Of indictment for frauds upon
the 2 irish, may b fourd In Comb. 2s7, Mod.
l79. 2 Campl. 269, Bott S42, Nolan, Poor
Laws 24S 37l.
| Robinson's case, Chilly, Grim. Law, 666,
was an indictment ag inst a surveyor Of high
ways or fraud upon the Pensioners by ap.
pro2rialing gravel and labor, sc. to his own
emolument.
| So in the case of The Minister of St. BotoIph,
! w. 81. 643 the rendering false account of
monies collected for the relief Of certain suffer-
ers by fire, was said 20 be an indie able offence.
his could be only Der ause i, was a fraud upon
an indefinite number Of persons who had no
individual means Of redress.
So fraud upon Parish, by procuring the
marriage of a pauper SO as to charge the Par
lsh, is indictable upon the same principle
Tarrant's case, Bur. 2lo6
So also fraud by an apprentice in obtaining