R v Owen Pritchard

[34] 1861 reoina v. owen pritchabd. (So much of section 9 of the 7 Geo IV c 46 as enacts that, in all indictments to be had or preferred by or on behalf of a banking copartnership carrying on business under the provisions of that Act, it shall be lawful and sufficient to state the money, &c , of such copartnership to be the money, &c , of any one of the public officers for the time being of such copartnership, if obligatory and not merely permissive, is modified by sect. 14 of the 7 Geo. IV. c 64 ; and in any such indictment the property of the copartnership may be described as the property of one of the public officers under the former, or as the property of one of the partners and others under the latter enactment ) [S. C. 30 L. J. M. C 169 , 4 L T. 340 ; 25 J P 484 , 7 Jur. N S. 557 , 9 W R. 579 ; 8 Cox C C 461. Referred to, R. v Webster, 1861, post, p 77 ] The following case was reserved by Channell B. The prisoner, Owen Pritchard, was convicted before me at the last assizes for Denbighshire of stealing 8 Ibs. weight of brass. The conviction is to be taken to be correct, subject only to the question whether 12$2 REGINA V. OWEN PRITCHARD LE. & CA. 35. the indictment sufficiently describes the ownership ot the property, which is the subject thereof. The property charged to have been stolen consisted of certain brasses or caps which had formed part of an engine and machinery used in the working of colliery works known as The Llywernian Colliery Works. The indictment on which the prisoner was arraigned, and to which he pleaded, described the property as the property of " John Cleveland Green Edward Green was called as a witness for the prosecution. He sworn that he watt the son of John Cleveland Green, that John Cleveland Green was the manager of The Dudley and West Bromwich Bank, that he was sent by his father to reside near the colliery works, that he had the engines and works belonging to the colliery under his care at the time when the brasses and caps were severed and taken from the machinery, that he could not exactly say he was a servant of the Company but that he received from his father payment for taking charge of the machinery and workn ; that he believed the money came from the [35] Company , that with money he got from his father he paid the men on the works, and that the engines and machinery belonged to the Dudley and West Bromwich Company No registration ot the Dudlev and West Bromwich Company as a joint stock banking Company, or of the appointment of any manager or public officer thereof, was proved. It was objected by the prisoner's counsel that the ownership of the property in John Cleveland Green was not proved The witness stated that Philip Williams was one of the partners in The Dudley and West Bromwich Bank , that there were more than twenty partners or shareholders in the bank, and that it was, as he understood, a joint stock banking company I was thereupon requested to amend the indictment 1 did so by striking out the words John Cleveland Green, and stating the property to be the property of Philip Williams and others The prisoner was convicted and sentenced, and is now undergoing his sentence On the same day on which he was tried, and shortly after the verdict was recorded, my attention was called by the...