The North-Eastern Weekly Gazette. — 1890-07-26 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

THE TRIAL.  On Tuesday the prisoner surrendered to his bail to answer to the charges of attempted suicide, fraud by falsification of accounts, and larceny. The defendant has become very grey since the commencement of the proceedings, and has aged in appearance considerably. Mr Milvain, Q.C., and Mr Manisty, instructed by Mr T. M. Barron, appeared for the prosecution; Mr Waddy, , Q.C., and Mr Strachan for the defenoe, instructed by Mr Jaynes.  Before the prisoner was charged Mr Waddy took a preliminary objection to the form in which the indictments for fraud, etc., were Laid. He thought his learned friend (Mr Strachan) would agree with him that all those counts were convertible, and framed in an alternative form which, he submitted, rendered them bad. He based his objection on a long line of cases, the principal of which was before the Lord Chief Justice. He objected that. these various counts on which the prisoner was charged were all duplicates. He submitted that the prosecution were bound to state whether they were dealing with the prisoner for one offence or for another. Where there were two offences in the statute, and either of them would subject him to punishment, the count was bad, and had been held to be so where it was put in the alternative. The count here set forth that while , the prisoner was clerk, officer, or servant—he (Mr Waddyj was not aura that that was not bad in itself, but what followed was a much graver matter that the prisoner, with intent to defraud, did omit, or concur in omitting. That he would submit was absolutely bad. Earlier than that there was an equally grave error. The count set forth that when the prisoner was clerk, or servant, or acting in the capacity of clerk, officer, or servant, Mr Wodly thought he was entitled to know on what ground in ether of the instances referred to the prosecution proposed to proceed. One ground would require one set of witnesses and arguments, and the other ground would want a totally different set. The case he chiefly relied upon was I an liPpeal before the Lord Chief Justice and the I Master of the Rolls heard on the 12th July inst. I The first, second, third, and fifth counts were I affected by the fatal objection as to the alternative [between omitting and concurring in omitting, while the fourth wag, and all of them were vitiated by the alternative as to capacity. He submitted that these blunders rendered it unnecessary for his client to answer to the counts referred to. Mr Manisty, replying to this point, said his lordship had the power of amending an indictment of this kind if the objection taken to the bad parts of the indictment were such as nottoprejndice— The Judge (interposing) : Is that so? I did not think the power to amend extended to such a matter as that. It is very limited. Mr Manisty referred to the 14th and 15th [ Victoria, cop. 100, sec. 1, where it dealt with variations "in the name or description of any person or persons." So far as regarded the counts re lating to the making of false entries in this indictment, the descriptive parte--nainely, that lie was clerk or servant, or acting in the capacity of clerk or servant—were not such material parts as the Act I contemplated in limiting the power of amendment. They were merely descriptive parts, and not connected with the offence, which was that the person charged did so and so or so and so. It might be, with regard to the omission to account, that there was a variance which might be fatal, but with regard to the counts as to making false entries, the first part of the count merely described the individual. The offence was that the defendant, occupying a certain position, did falsify or make omission. The Judge; Still, that is as essentially a park of the description of the offence as anything ewe, because the offence is statutory—it is created by and there are really two seta of offences there. : If your lordship looks down the ' see it says that if • peesonfhall do 'Nis with regard to that which is his employer." ...a same employer, but it is not of person, and therefore it is the Each of • set of substantives connected together with a disport of the whole is just • separate offence as if •it can deo- I fAve