« PreviousContinue »
0. B. Trin.
22 Ass. 95.
Sect. 35. From what has been said it clearly appears, that no B. Cor. 93. burglary can be committed by breaking into any ground inclosed, S. P. C. so. Dalt. c. 151.
or booth, or tent, &c. (a); for there seems to be no colour, from (a) But see any authority ancient or modern, to make any offence burglary ante, p. 1.33. that is not done either against some house, or church, or the
walls or gates of some town.
As to THE SIXTH POINT, viz. What degree of guilt is required
in the principal intention of the offender. Dyer, 99. Sect. 36. It seems clear, that there can be no burglary but 3 İnst. 65.
where the indictment both expressly alleges, and the verdict also Kely. 30. 67.
finds, an intention to commit some felony; for if it appear that 1 Hale, 562, the offender only meant to commit a irespass, as to beat the
party, &c. he is not guilty of felony. Rex v. Bingley,
+ Sect. 37. And therefore where a servant embezzled money
intrusted to his care, ten guineas of which he deposited in his 3 Jac. 2. M. S. trunk, and quitted his master's service, but afterwards returned,
broke and entered the house in the night, and took away the ten guineas; it was adjudged no burglary, because it did not appear that he entered to commit a felony, but a trespass only,
Sect. 38. However, it seems much the better opinion, that an (a) Rex v. intention to commit a rape, (a) or such other crime which is made Gray: Strange, felony by statute, and was a trespass only at common law, will 482. in point.
make a man guilty of burglary, as much as if such offence were a felony at common law; because wherever a statute makes any offence felony, it incidentally gives it all the properties of a felony at common law. (6)
As to the seventh POINT, viz. In what manner burglary is deprived of the benefit of clergy.
+ Sect. 39. By 18 Eliz. c. 7. “ If any person or persons shall “ commit or do any manner of felonious burglary, he or they « shall suffer death without benefit of clergy."
+ Sect. 40. By 3 and 4 Will. and Mary, c. 9. “ All and every "person or persons that shall counsel, hire, or command any “ person to commit any burglary, shall not have the benefit of “ his or their clergy,”
(6) Lord Hale states, that, to constitute burglary, the house must be broken and entered with intent to commit a felony at common law, and not a fact made felony by statute. And he therefore says, it has been doubted whether breaking a house in the night, with intent to commit rape, were burglary or not : Crompton thinking it would not, because made felony by statute Westm. 2. c. 34. ; and Dalton (Ch. 151. s. 5. Stamf. 81.) thinking it would, because rape was originally felony at common law, though reduced to misdemeanor by statute. It seems, however, now, as Hawkin's observes, to be the better opinion, that if the house be broke, and with intent to commit any felony, whether so by common law or made so by statute, the offence is burglary. (2 E. P. C. 511. Black. Com. v. 4. c. 16.)
In the case of Rex v. Knight and Roffey, who broke into a dwelling-house in the night with intent to rescue some smuggled goods, which were laid in the indictment as the property of the officer, and stated the intent to be to steal those goods, the jury found, that the prisoners broke into the house with intent to take the goods on behalf of one Smith, from whom they had been seized. The judge held, that this indictment was not well supported, there being no intention to steal; but if the indictment had been for breaking, &c. the house with intent feloniously to rescue goods seized, &c. that being made felony by stat, 19 Geo. 2. c. 34. the Chief Baron and some other of the judges held, that it would have been burglary. (2 East, P. C. 510.)
As to THE EIGHTH POINT, viz. Of the statutes which have been passed with a view to prevent this offence:
+ Sect. 41. By 23 Hen. 8. c.5. “ If any person or persons “ be indicted for the death of any evil-disposed person or per
sons attempting burglariously to break mansion-houses in the “ night-time, the person or persons so indicted shall be thereof “ fully acquitted and discharged.”
+ Sect. 42. By 10 and 11 Will. 3. c. 23. “Whoever shall ap“ prehend any person guilty of burglary shall have a certificate, “ exempting him from all parish and ward offices.” By 58 Geo.3. c. 70. s. 2. this certificate cannot be assigned to any other person,
+ Sect. 43. By 10 Geo. 3. c. 48. “ Buyers and receivers of “ stolen jewels, gold or silver plate, watches, when the stealing “ shall have been accompanied with a burglary, shall be triable “ as well before the conviction of the principal, whether he shall “ be in or out of custody, as after, and transported for fourteen.. “ years."
ARSON is a felony at common law, in maliciously and volun-
And I shall consider,
2. Whether this offence may be committed in the offender's own house.
3. How much of the house ought to be burnt. 4. With what degree of malice.
+ 5. In what cases the benefit of clergy is taken from this offence.
As to THE FIRST POINT, viz. What is such a house in which arson may be committed.
Sect. 1. It seems agreed, that not only a mansion-house, and the principal parts thereof, but also any other house and the outbuildings, as barns and stables adjoining thereto, and also barns full of corn, whether they be adjoining to any house or not, are so far secured by law, that the malicious burning of them is arson. And it is said, that in an indictment they are well expressed by the word domus, without adding mansionalis. Sect. 2. But it seems, that the burning of the frame of a house 1 Hale, 568. Sect. 3. Yet anciently the burning of a stack of corn was accounted arson; + and now by 9 Geo. 1. c. 22. it is arson to set fire to any “ house, barn, out-house; or to any hovel, cock, mow,
3 Inst. 67. or of a stack of corn, &c. is not accounted arson, because it can- Britt. s. 16. not come under the word domus, which seems at present to be S. P. C. 36. thought necessary in every indictment of arson.
Dalt. c. 105.
1 Burn, 289. Sect.
“ or stack of corn, straw, hay, or wood.” Taylor's case,
+ Sect. 4. But it has been determined, that a paper-mill is not Cases Cro. an out-house, within the meaning of the statute. Law, 46.
By statute 9 Geo. 3. c. 29. 8. 2. “ Whereas no effectual pro" vision hath heretofore been made for preventing the burning of “ mills, be it enacted, that if any person or persons shall (after “ the 1st day of July, 1796,) wilfully or maliciously burn or set “ fire to any wind saw-mill or other wind-mill, or any water“ mill or other mill, such person so offending, being lawfully “ convicted thereof, shall be adjudged guilty of felony without
“ benefit of clergy." Judd's case,
+ Sect. 5. It has also been determined, that setting fire to a Cases Cro. parcel of unthrashed wheat in the night, is not sufficiently deLaw, 381.
scriptive of the offence of setting fire to “ a cock, mow, or stack
“ of corn,” &c. to bring the offender within the statute. Rex v. Dona + Sect. 6. It has been determined, that the setting fire to an van, Cases C. apartment of a common gaol of a county to which a dwellingL. 64. S. C. 2 Blk.
house for the keeper to live in adjoins, the entrance into the priRep. 682. son being through the dwelling-house, is arson, although a wall
separates the prison from the house.
As to THE SECOND POINT, viz. Whether arson may be com
mitted in the offender's own house. Holme's case, Sect. 7. It seems clearly agreed, that one seised in fee, or but 1 Jones, 351. C. Car. 377.
possessed for years, of a house standing by itself at a distance Sed vide Fuse from all others, cannot commit felony in burning the same. ter, 116. Rex 7. Spald. + Sect. 8. It has also been decided, that a tenant in possession ing, Bury Lent of a copyhold dwelling-house cannot be guilty of arson by burnAssizes, 1780, ing the same, although he had a long time before surrendered it on a case re
es into the hands of the lord of the manor, to the use of another Crown Law, person, his heirs and assigns, for securing the payment of money 193.
borrowed; for while the tenant continues in possession, it is his
own house. Rex v. Breeme, + Sect. 9. It has also been decided, upon the same reason, Old. Bailey, that a tenant in possession, under an agreement for a lease for April Session, 1780. On a case three years, from a person who held under a building lease, is reserved, Cases not guilty of arson by burning the house, for it is the injury to Cro. Law. 195. the possession which this law means to punish. Pedley's case, + Sect. 10. It has also been decided, that a tenant from year
Nn to year, or from month to month, cannot be guilty of arson by Law, 209. 5. c. Cald. 218. burning the house of which he is so in possession. 1 Hale, 568, Sect. 11. Also it seems the much stronger opinion, that a 569. 3 Inst. 67.
man so seised or possessed of a house in a town, who burns Dalt. C. 105. his own with an intent to burn his neighbour's, but in the Cro. Car. 338. event burns his own only, is not guilty of arson; for by the general tenor of the books speaking of this offence, it seems to
be supposed to be done in the house of another, and not of the offender. (1)
+ Sect. 12. It is however determined, that a widow entitled to Harris' case, dower, but no dower assigned, from a house, the equity of the Foster, 113 to
116. redemption of which had descended from her husband to her infant children, and for whose benefit she had let it and received the rent, is guilty of arson by burning it in the possession of her tenant.-And it was said, that if she had been seised of the freehold, it would still have been felony; from whence it is contended, that a reversioner who shall maliciously fire the houses in possession of his tenants under leases from himself or his ancestors, will be guilty of arson.
+ Sect. 13. It has also been determined, that if a pauper admitted into a parish poor-house set fire to the room in which she with other paupers sleep, she is thereby guilty of arson; for this is the house of the parish.
+ Sect. 14. So also it has been determined to be arson in a Rex v. Donaprisoner confined for debt in a county gaol, to set fire to the little van, 2 Bl. Rep. box which forms his aparment in the prison.
Sect. 15. So also, although no act which is only a crime in re- Kelynge, 29. spect of the injury which it does, or may do, to another, be made Fost. 115, 116. felony by reason of an intention thereby to commit a felony, if such intention be not executed; yet if the house set fire to be in a town, this is certainly an offence highly punishable in regard of the malice thereof, and the great danger to the public which attends it, and the offender may be severely fined, and imprisoned during the king's pleasure, and set on the pillory, and bound to his good behaviour during life.
As to the THIRD POINT, viz. How much of such house ought to be burnt.
Sect. 16. It seems to be clearly agreed, that neither a bare in- 1 Hale, 570. tention to burn a house, nor even an actual attempt to do it by Dalt.
3 Inst. 66. putting fire to part of a house, will amount to felony, if no part Com of it be burnt; for the indictment must have the words incendit et combussit.
Sect. 17. But it is certain, that if any part of the house be burnt, the offender is guilty of felony, notwithstanding the fire afterwards be put out, or go out of itself.
By statute 6 Anne, c. 21. “ any servant negligently setting fire “ to a house or out-houses, shall, on conviction before two jus“ tices of the peace, forfeit £100, or be sent to the house of cor“ rection for eighteen months.”
By 43 Geo. 3. c. 58. s. 4. it is enacted, “ That if any person “ or persons, from and after the 1st of July, 1803, shall, either “ in England or Ireland, wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully, “ set fire to any house, barn, granary, hop oast, malt-house,
“ stables, (1) But if he set fire to his own house, mali. son; or if he set fire to his own house in a town, ciously intending to fire the house of B. and also and thereby in fact others be burnt down, he is thereby do baru the house of B. he is guilty of ar. also guilty of arson, (2 East, 1031, Isaac's case.)
« stables, coach-house, out-house, mill, warehouse, or shop,
The statute 52 Geo. 3. c. 130. “ for the more effectual pu-
As to THE FOURTH POINT, viz. With what degree of malice
such house ought to be burnt. (a) 1 Hale, 569. Sect. 18. It seems clear, that if the fire happened through negli3 Inst. 67. gence (a) or mischance, it cannot make him who is the unfortuPlow. 475.
nate cause of it, guilty of arson; for the indictment must allege the offence to have been done voluntariè, malitia suâ præcogitatâ et felonicè. Yet if one maliciously intending to burn only the house of A. happen thereby to burn the house of B. it is certain that he may be indicted as having maliciously burned the house of B. for where a felonious design against one man misses its aim, and takes effect upon another, it shall have the like construction as if it had been levelled against him who suffers by it.
As to THE FIFTH POINT, viz. In what cases arson is deprived of the benefit of clergy.
+ Sect. 19. By 4 and 5 Philip and Mary, c. 4. it is enacted, “ That all and every person and persons that shall maliciously “ command, hire, or counsel any person or persons wilfully to “ burn any dwelling-house, or any part thereof, or any barn then “ having corn or grain in the same, shall not have the benefit of “ his or their clergy."