ON the first day of this session, William Trapshaw < no role > and Francis Part < no role > , whose cases had been reserved for the opinion of the Judges, were set to the bar, when Mr. Justice Gould delivered such opinion as follows:

William Trapshaw proceedingsdefend was indicted for aburglary, in the dwelling house of James Linnell < no role > , between the hours of five and six in the forenoon of the 24th of August, Frances his wife being therein, and stealing goods to the value of nine shillings and ten-pence: It is stated that the house in which the fact was committed, was the house of Lord Radnor, let in separate tenements to different lodgers, with one outer door common to all: Linnell rented and occupied a room on the first floor, in which he and his wife slept, and a parlour which was broke open, and the things stolen therein: The Jury found the prisoner guilty, subject, as to the capital charge of breaking and entering the dwelling house, to this question, Whether under the above circumstances, the room broke open by the prisoner was well laid, as the dwelling house of James Linnell < no role > ? This case has been under the consideration of all the Judges, and they are of opinion that this charge is well laid as the dwelling house of James Linnell < no role > . This indictment is founded on a part of the first section of the statute, of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, which is in these words

"or shall

"rob any dwelling house in the day time,

"any persons being therein." Now this term rob implies in itself, necessarily, force and violence, and the construction has always been upon this, as well as upon other acts of Parliament, that though breaking and entering is not mentioned, they are included, and necessarily contained under the term rob: The construction upon this, and on other of parliament of the same nature, has always been so, that that the breaking must be of a dwelling house, in the same way as it is necessary to constitute burglary. The difference is, that offence must be committed in the night time, but this offence is in the day time, and some person to be therein, under this act of parliament. Now in the 13th year of his present Majesty's reign, there happened a case at the Old Bailey, the King against William Rogers < no role > , Michaelmas, 13 Geo. < no role > 3d, he had been tried at the then last Sessions at the Old Bailey; he was indicted for burglary, in the dwelling house of one Chandler. It appeared, that the owner of the house let the whole of it in apartments to different persons, not inhabiting any part of it himself; Chandler rented a shop, part of the house, and the cellar underneath, at the rent of twelve pounds twelve shillings, but the owner took back from him the cellar, in which he kept lumber, giving him ten shillings a year for it; the entrance was into a passage by a door from the street, and on the side of the passage, a door opened into the shop, another into the parlour, and beyond that a stair-case led to the upper apartment, which shop and parlour was broke open; it was objected this was not the dwelling house of Chandler. The first day of Michaelmas term, the 13th of his present Majesty, this case came before the Judges at Lord Manfield's chambers, and they were all present; there was Lord Baron Smythe < no role > , Mr. Baron Adams < no role > , Mr. Baron Perrott < no role > , and Mr. Baron Eyre < no role > , and Mr. Justice Willes, Mr. Justice Aston, Mr. Justice Nares, and myself, all concurred that it was property laid, and could not be charged to be the dwelling house of the owner, and they said if this was not proper, there could be no protection against burglaries, which are very frequent in this town. This case is directly in point with the present case; that is the opinion of all the Judges. There happened to be another case in February, 1781, at the session at the Old Bailey, which the Recorder reserved for the opinion of the Judges; the King against Richard Carroll < no role > ; he was indicted for burglary, in the dwelling house of John Jordan < no role > ; the case stated was, the house in which the offence was committed belonged to one Nash, who did not live in any part of it himself, but let the whole of it out in separate lodgings; John Jordan < no role > had two apartments in the house, a sleeping room up one pair of stairs, and a workshop in the garret, that he rented as tenant at will to Nash; this workshop was broke open by the prisoner. The question was, whether this indictmentcould be supported for burglary, in the dwelling house of John Jordan < no role > ? And according to my note of this case, the unanimous opinion of the Judges was, that it was properly laid to be the dwelling house of John Jordan < no role > , and they looked on the former case I have mentioned of the King and Rogers, to be a case in point. It is proper for me to say, that I have seen a memorandum of the same case, by Mr. Justice Buller, in which he takes notice, that only ten of the twelve Judges were, in this case of the King and Carrol, of that opinion, and that he, and Mr. Baron Eyre < no role > differed; I dare say it must have been so, that they did differ in opinion, or else he would not recently have set it down on his paper, but as to myself, I have no recollection of any difference; but on the present occasion, all the Judges are of opinion that these two authorities prove this point, and that this indictment properly charges it to be in the dwelling house of James Linnell < no role > ; and the reason of it is evident, the moment it is stated, the landlord inhabiting no part of the house, though he be the owner of the house, the lord of it, if I may so say, it cannot with any propriety be called his mansion house, his dwelling house; but the inside being split into divers apartments, is let to several people, and each of those apartments is the distinct dwelling house of each inhabitant: On this ground the opinion is, that this man is well convicted.

Francis Parr proceedingsdefend was next set to the bar.

Mr. Justice Gould. Francis Parr < no role > was indicted on the statute of the 31st of his late Majesty, chap. 22. section 77, at the sessions, on the 10th of January last, for personating Isaac Hart < no role > , the real proprietor of 3900 l. capital stock, in the three per cents consolidated annuities, and thereby endeavouring to receive 58 l. 10 s. half a year's dividend on the said stock, being the money of the said Isaac Hart < no role > : The facts of the case are these, that the prisoner had applied to the clerk, whose business it was to issue the dividend warrants on that stock, in the name of Isaac Hart < no role > , for a warrant of half a year's dividend; the words used by the prisoner were,

" Isaac Hart < no role > 3900 l." and he signed the book Isaac Hart < no role > ; being asked of what place, he said, of Windsor, and that agreed with the description in the book; upon that, a warrant was made out for the sum of 58 l. 10 s. which he again signed Isaac Hart < no role > , and which was then delivered to him: This warrant entitled any person who should be the bearer of it, to receive that sum at the Pay-office on demand. He was apprehended some minutes after, without it appearing he had made any application at the Pay-office, or even gone towards it, or taken any step whatever for obtaining the money made payable thereby. The Jury found him guilty, subject to the opinion of the Judges on this question; whether those circumstances amounted to an endeavour to receive the money of Isaac Hart < no role > , within the true intent and meaning of the act of parliament that I have mentioned. This case has been taken into consideration by all the Judges, and very duly attended to, and it is their unanimous opinion, that the charge is supported by these facts, that it was an endeavour to receive the money of Isaac Hart < no role > , within the true meaning of that statute. This question lays within a very narrow compass: it may be proper to observe the provisions of this statute: First, it provides against forging letters of attorney, authorities, or instruments for transferring stock, or receiving dividends, or forging the names of proprietors in, or to such letters of attorney, authorities, or instruments, or knowingly or fraudulently endeavouring to have such transfer received, by virtue of such forged letters of attorney or instruments: then it comes to the matter before us,

"if any person shall

"falsely and deceitfully personate any

"true and real proprietor of a share in the

"said stock annuities or dividends, and shall

"thereby transfer or endeavour to transfer

"the stock, or receive or endeavour to

"receive the money of such true and" lawful proprietor, it shall be felony

"without benefit of clergy." If the prisoner had received the money, he had accomplished the purpose, and then there could have been no possible doubt; but the act of parliament very sagaciously, and wisely too, provided that no person shall endeavour, or take any steps towards obtaining other person's money in the funds. Now the question was before the Jury, whether these were not unambiguous and unequivocal steps, towards what may be called the endeavour to receive the money? he comes forward; he personates and assumes the name of the real proprietor; he calls himself Isaac Hart < no role > ; he writes his name in the book, Isaac Hart < no role > ; the dividend warrant is made out, and he signs the name Isaac Hart < no role > again to that dividend warrant, and he receives that dividend warrant; really, I think myself, there need not be any argument to prove this to be an endeavour as far as it went towards the receiving of the stock; from the bare stating the facts, and circumstances themselves. The matter has been considered by all the Judges, and they were unanimously of opinion, that this did support the charge in the indictment, and that the prisoner was well convicted.

There was another case of Moffat; with respect to that case, the Judges think it is fit to consider the matter further; he must remain.