The Sun. — 1844-07-16 (London, England)

CROWN COURT. , (Before Mr. Justice WiGHTlitax.) John Curd, a boy, aged 16, was indicted for having feloniously assaulted -Caroline Berger, a child under ten years of age. Mr. Sewell conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was defended by Mr. C. Saunders. This is a case we should, not refer to, but to give publicity to an important decision pronounced by the Learned Judge on a point of evidence. , The prisoner had been in the employ of a • Mr. Hancock, who was not the prosecutor, and in point of fact had nothing to do with the prosecution. When, however, the charge was made against the prisoner, and before he was apprehended, his master told bins it would be much better for him to confess. and if he did so, he would prevail, if he could, with the father of the child not to take any steps in the matter. The prisoner on this said, "If he ( Mr. Hancock) would send for the surgeon he would confess." The surgeon was sent for, and the prisoner then made a satement. Mr. SAUNDERS, for the prisoner, objected to that statement being received in evidence. It was made, he contended, after an inducement held out to confess by his master who had sufficient authority over him, to render any statement subsequently made by the prisoner, in consequence of that inducement, inadmissible. The Learned Counsel cited 2 Russ on Crimes, p. 839, and the cases there cited. Mr. SEWELL, on behalf of tho Crown, contended that, in order to render a statement inadmissible that'had been made in consequence of an inducement held out by a third person, it was absolutely necessary that that third person should be one in some way connected with the charge, and having some authority in reference to it. Mr. Justice WIGIITMAN (after consultation with his Learned brother, Mr. Justice Patteson) decided that the party holding out the inducement being clothed with the authority of " master," was sufficient to exclude the statement made in consequence of such inducement. • • Mr. SEWIILL then stated to the jury that, in consequence of the decision, he did not think that he could support the case, and he should therefore not proceed with it. A ~....ato, we Not Guilty was theu returned, and the prisoner was discharged. Robert Baez was indicted for the murder of John Harrison, by shooting him with a pistol. Mr. Sewell proaecuted. The prisoner was defended by Mr., Cockburn and Mr. Raulinson. On the case being called on, Mr. Raneresol,e-stated to the Court that he should demur to the indictment, which he accordingly did. Several grounds of objection- were siege(' in the demurrer, but all were abandoned but one. This was that the indictment charged the prisoner with having committed this murder on the high seas, and that there was no proper, venue. In the margin was the venue "Hampshire." Then there was an inducement stating that the parties were on the high seas when the alleged offence was committed. The indictment after this inducement went on to allege each fact to have taken place "then and there," Without directly averring that it was upon the high seas. Mr. RAULINSON contended that the averment of place was not sufficient. It ought to have averred in express terms that each fact, had taken place on the high seas, 2 Stock Cr. Pl. 455. The only venue of importance in this indictment was that in the margin, which was Hampshire. The " then and there" consequently must be referred to this venue, and Got to that stated in the indictment. But even if it were not so held, it would still be bad for uncertainty, as it would not then appear to which venue the "then and there" referred; and the King v. Rolls, 1 Re. Rep. 223, was cited as an authority. Mr. SEWELL argued that the "then and there " must necessarily have reference to the last venue, which was the immediate antecedent. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN (after consulting with Mr. Justice Patteson), decided in favour of the Crown; and the prisoner was called upon to plead over. Mr. COCKBURN then put in a special plea, which was to this effect :—That the alleged offence had been committed on the high seas. near to Spalatro, in Italy That icharge had been preferred against the prisoner at Spalatro, alleging the crime to have been committed within the jurisdiction of that Court. That that charge had been gone into, and the prisoner acquitted. Mr. SEWELL prayed some time to consider this plea, r -..........". which was granted by the Court. After the Learned