The Session being ended, the Court proceeded to pass Sentence as follows:

Received Judgment of Death, 9, viz.

Thomas Tuck < no role > , Daniel Gunter < no role > , James Belvin, Robert Fossett < no role > , John Burne < no role > , George Green, James Francis < no role > , Thomas Collins < no role > , Robert Watson.

N. B. Sentence of Death on William Ludlam was postponed till the next Sessions, he being sick.

To be Transported for fourteen years, 3, viz.

James Sharrard, William Annand < no role > , Grace Maddocks < no role > .

To be Transported for seven years, 20, viz.

George Young < no role > , David Latham < no role > , Mary Smith < no role > , Thomas Vobe < no role > This name instance is in set 14311431. , Jane Williams < no role > otherwise Jane Dickers, Elizabeth Leicester < no role > , Susannah Stewart, Jonathan Barrett < no role > , Sarah Roberts < no role > , Sarah Wilson < no role > , Mary Simpson, Margaret Morgan alias Mary Jones, John Wilson < no role > , James Vaughan < no role > , William Thomas < no role > , Elizabeth Roster, John M'Kenzie, Thomas Ipey < no role > , John Langford, Samuel Steele < no role > .

To be imprisoned one year, 4, viz.

William Merchant < no role > , James M'Cullock, Samuel Charmbury < no role > , Eleanor Hinton < no role > .

To be imprisoned six months, 2, viz.

Thomas Williams < no role > , Daniel Kinslow < no role > .

To be imprisoned two months, 2, viz.

Henry Simmonds < no role > , Stephen Hitchcock < no role > .

To be whipped, 9, viz.

John Pearson < no role > , Henry Symonds < no role > , Thomas Williams < no role > , Daniel Kinslow < no role > , Samuel Chambury < no role > , Bernardus Florio, Stephen Hitchcock < no role > , Samuel Chesham < no role > , James Nelson < no role > .

Judgment respited on John Hitchcock < no role > , and William Howe < no role > alias Howard.

WILLIAM MORRIS proceedingsdefend , tried in July Session, whose Case was reserved, was put to the Bar, when Mr. BARON PERRYN < no role > delivered the OPINION of the JUDGES as follows:

THIS was on an indictment against one Sadi, as a principal for a felony, in stealing, in the dwelling house of Stephen Sullivan < no role > , Esq; two bank notes, each of the value of 200 l. laying them to be the property of the said Stephen Sullivan < no role > , Esq; and the same indictment charged the prisoner, William Morris < no role > , as accessary after the fact, for receiving the said bank notes, the same being the property and chattles of the said Stephen Sullivan < no role > , knowing them to be stolen: and there was another count against the said William Morris < no role > , for receiving, harbouring, and encouraging the said Sadi to do and commit the said robbery. The trial came on in July sessions; and the Jury found Sadi, the principal, guilty of stealing the notes, and William Morris < no role > , on the first count, of receiving the notes, knowing them to have been stolen, but acquitted him on the count for receiving the felon. On this conviction, the council for the prisoner, William Morris < no role > , moved in arrest of judgment, on two grounds: first, on the variance between the count against the principal, wherein the notes are charged to be the property of Stephen Sullivan < no role > , and the count against the accessary, wherein they are charged to be the property and chattles of Stephen Sullivan < no role > : The second objection was, that receiving notes was not within any act of Parliament, which makes receivers accessaries after the fact. The case was reserved by Mr. Rose, and referred to all the Judges; and, on a conference had by them, on the first day of Term, they directed the counsel for the prisoner to be heard; and, on the 14th of November, the case was argued very much before ten Judges, by Mr. Knowlys: with respect to the first objection, the Judges thought, that the word chattles, in the count against the accessary, might be rejected as surplusage: With respect to the question, whether the receiving notes, knowing them to have been stolen, was, or was not, within any of the acts of Parliament &c.? has occasioned a different opinion among the Judges; the receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, was only a misdemeanor at common law: A receiver of stolen goods makes not an accessary, unless he receives the thief himself, or takes a reward to favour his escape. This is laid down in a variety of authorities: in Hawk. 319. in Stamf. Pleas 41. Steel 91. 2d Institute 83. Crook Eliz. < no role > 688. in Hale's Pleas of the Crown 619 and 620, he says this: If A. has his goods stolen by B; and C. knowing they were stolen, receives them; this simply of itself makes not an accessary: and therefore it has been often ruled, if I. S. receives stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, it is not actionable, because it imports not a felony, but only trespass and misdemeanors, &c. and the bare receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, makes not an accessary, for he may receive them for the true owner. - Thus it stood at common law previous to the 3 & 4 W. < no role > & M. ch. 9. and which enacts,

"that if any person shall buy and receive any goods and chattels, that shall be feloniously taken, he shall be taken and deemed an accessary to such felony, after the fact," &c. By the statute of 5 Ann,c. 31. sec. 5. it is enacted,

"that if any person shall receive any goods or chattels, &c. knowing them to have been stolen, shall be taken as an accessary, and being legally convicted, shall suffer death as a felon convict;" these acts against receivers, mention goods and chattels only, and do not extend to choses in action, as bank-notes are, which are not made chattles: in Cabe's case 8. Croke 32. Elyerton 68. 1 Burrow 457. Lord Mansfield lays it down in the case of Millar and Rase, that banknotes are not to be considered as goods and chattles; they are to be taken, as money, and certainly are passed as money only; and until the beginning of the reign of his late Majesty, a felony must have been of goods and chattles; to remedy this, the statute of 2 Geo. < no role > 2. ch. 25. by which it is enacted,

"that if any person shall steal any exchequer order, bond, bank note, &c. notwithstanding the said properties are termed in law, choses in action, &c. it shall be construed felony, in the same manner, as if the offender had stolen, or taken away by robbery, any other goods of like value, &c. and such offender shall suffer such punishment, as he should or might have done, if he had stolen such goods, &c. Now it is observable, that in this act, no mention is made of the accessary; but where the act of parliament makes a felon, it does incidentally make such accessaries, as would before or after be accessaries at common law: (see 1 Hale 613. 4 & 5 W. < no role > & M. < no role > 5 Ann, and 5 Geo. < no role > 2.) in the consideration of this cause, what is mentioned by Foster in his Report 373. appears very material; that by the statute of Eliz. < no role > 12 & 13, in the case of horse-stealing, clergy is taken away, &c. not to such as were made accessaries by subsequent statutes; and therefore the person knowingly receiving the stolen horse, is not ousted; and this he says was agreed on in a conference, &c. In this case, therefore, the majority of Judges are of opinion, in which I concur, for the reasons I have already mentioned, that the second objection taken by Mr. Knowlys, the prisoner's counsel, was well founded; and, as the Jury have acquitted him on the first count, and only found him guilty on the second count; the Judges are of opinion, that judgment must be arrested; and in consequence thereof, the prisoner must be discharged .