given again It him who was found Guilty, becaufe the other was ac- Them. But
quitted. But Per tot. Cur. the Execution may be feveral, and it is /70 £ the Motion
'■material, tho' one be acquitted, and the other found Guilty. Style j n ud g„ en °
245- Hill. 1650. B. R The Keepers &c. v. Maine and Serjeant. was founded
Upon the
Finding one Guilty, and the other Not, as well as upon the Information being Joint ; and lb it feems
by the Anfwer of the Jullices.
6. An Information for a Riot concluded Contra Formam Statuti 13 H. 4.
After Verdicf it was moved in Arrelt of Judgment, That this Informa-
tion was not good, being grounded on this Statute, which only mentions-
Riots and appoints them to be punifhed in the Manner there expreffed j
but Keyling Ch. J. was of Opinion, That it being a Crime at Common
Law, and mentioned in this Statute, the Information was well con-
cluded j but the other Jultices inclined to the contrary. Vent. 43 Mich.
21 Car. 2 ; B. R. The King v. Monk & al.
7. An Indictment was, That the Defendants Vi & Armis &c. rio-
tofe & routofe feipfos congregaverunt &c. cum Tntentione ad aliquid illici-
tum ibidem agendum & hacem Domini Regis Pcrturbandiim &c. And
that they, fo affembled, cut down Qaoddam .&jiercris &c. & .Ghiercum
Mud &ic. It was infilled in Maintenance of this indictment, ill. That in
was not neceffary to pew what unlawful All tiny affembled to do, pro-
vided thev did affemble to do an unlawful Act - z lor if they aifembkd to
Q.qq d
as
i»
24-2
Riots.
K
do one Act and did another it would be a Riot. 2dly, It appear'd they
did do an unlawful Aft, for they cut down an Oak, and the Fal/e Latin
could not vitiate ; fed non Allocatur: For Per Curiam.it is too general^
and the Aft ought to be fhewn, that the Court might judge whether the
Act: was unlawful or not. Betides they faid they would not encourage
fuch ill-drawn Indiftments &c. and therefore it was quafhed. 2LdRaym.
Rep. 12 io. Mich. 4 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. Guliton, Stubbs, & al.
8. Information lor that the Defendants with Force and Anns Clamoribui
& Voctf er at tonibus illicit, riotofe & routofe did hinder the Bailiff and Bur-
geffes of Bewdley, who were ajjembled on fuch a Day and Place to chufe
a Bailiff lot the laid Borough ike. to proceed to the Election. The Defen-
dants were found guilty, but the Judgment was arrelted. ill, Becaufe
it did not appear that any Right is claimed, nor any fiich Franchtfe pretended
to, fo that the Bailiff cCc might be doing an unlawful Aftj but if they
had fhewed a Right to this Franchise, then this might be a Dilturbance
to them in the Ule ot it. 2dly, Becaufe it is not laid that the Defen-
dants unlawfully aflembled themfelves; for a Riot is a Compound Of-
fence. There mull be not only an unlawful Aft to be done, but an un-
lawful Ail'embly of more than two. 2 Salk.594. pi. 3. Trin. 6 Annas
B. R. The Queen v. Soley.
9. An Information was for that the Defendants ajfembkd riotofe, rou-
tofe, and illiate, to dijlurb the Peace, did with Force and Arms OJitum cu-
jufdam Domus, vocat' the Guildhall Burgi de Bewdley, being Jhut &c,
throw off' Jrom the Hinges. The Defendants were convicted j but upon
Motion this Judgment was arretted, becaufe it did not appear whofc
Houfe it was ; for it might be the Delendant's Houfe, and then it w as
no unlawful Aft, and a Riot mult arife from an unlawful Aft. And
the Saying Vocat. the Guildhall Burgi does not make it to be ib. The
Guildhall may belong to a private Per/on as well as to the Borough. 2
Salk. 594. pi. 4. Trin. 6 Anna? B. R. The Queen v. Soley.
10. Indithncnt for a Riot on a Petty Conjl able \n the Execution of his
Office j and upon a Demurrer it was objected that this Indiftment was
ill, becaufe it was for a Riot in and fuper Pet. Conbulanum, when there is
no fuch Word as Pet. which was granted on the other Side, but that
Con'bularium with a Dalli made the Indiftment good. Per Cur. the
Word Pet. is Surplufage, and lhall therefore be rejected and the Indift-
ment is good without it, for the other Word makes it good. Judgment
for the King. 8 Mod. 327. Mich, n Geo. 1725. The King v. Harris.
1 1 . Indiftment for a Riot was, That the Defendants afjcmlkd illiate, rio->
tofe t? routofe, & illiate, riotofe B routofe freger tint &? profiaverunt Palas, and
took away &c. And did not fay Vi ct Armis. Per Raym. Ch. J. when the
Faff implies a Force, the Addition ofVi et Armis is not material, here it is
riotofe &c. fregerunt & proftraverunt Palas &c. which necell'arily im-
plies a Force and Trefpafs. And per tot. Cur. the Indiftment is well
enough. Gibb. 63. Patch. 2 Geo. 2. B. R. The King v. Myne & al.
(E) Proceedings, Pleadings, and Verdict.
I. AN Indiftment for a Riot was again/ 3, and the Jury found only
J~\ one of them Guilty of the Riot, this is avoid Verdift ; For
one alone cannot make a Riot. Arg. Poph. 202. Mich. 2 Car. B. R. in
the Caleof Harifon v. Errington.
2. Information againlt the Defendants, for that they, with others, did
riotott/ly ofjemble to divert a Water-Courfe, and that they fet up a Bank tn
fucb a Place, by which the Water was hinder' d from running to an ancient
Mill in fo plentiful a Manner as formerly &c. Upon No: Guilty pleaded,
the
R ioh.
2 43
the Jury found the Defendants Guilty quoad fitting tip the Bank, but quoad
the Riot Not Guilty. It was moved in Arreft of Judgment, That by this
Verdict the Defendants are acquitted of the Charge m the Information,
\vbich was the Riot, and that an Action on the Cafe would lie for erect-
ing the Bank ; And Judgment was arretted. 3 Mod. 72. Mich. 1 Tac. 2.
B. R. The King v. Colion & al. .
3. C. appeared upon his Recognikance, and an Information being filed
againft him and others, he was charged to plead to it, as had been the
Practice i But upon Debate it was laid, That he need not, and was noc
compellable ; and was allowed to appear, cud imnarle till the next Term.
Show. 56. Mich. 1 W.& M. The King v. Sir Thomas Cox.
4. An Information for a Riot in Breaking Fences and Inclofures inHart-
ford/hir-e lies in the Gown-Office. See Show. 106. Mich. 1 W. & M. The
King v. Bercber & al.
5. When the Coniiffwn of a Riot is by Timiijithn taken hfore 2 Juftices A S$kM It.-:
of Peace, the Inquilition has no Need to be, as taken pro Domino Rege cj? «3 ui »«onis
Corpore Comitates, but pro Dctmnu Rcge is fufficient, or rather better j for q ays Pro
their Enquiry is not lor the County, but ior the King, and fo is the con- Rege ; But
Itant Form of fuch Inqueft. But when an Inquilition is by the Grand '^ it "beat the
Jury, then it oua;tot to be Pro Domino Rege & Corpore Comitatus. Sir A |i; - fes . or
William Williams objected. That Et Corpore Comitatus was ill, becaufe^f^i"
their Authority was not divided or derived partly from the King and and Termi-
partly Irom the County, but Irom the King only, and executed only for per, then k
him ; and therefore (by him) it ought not to be Pro Corpore Comitatus. ls ProCo1 ;
But this Nicety was not regarded ; and the Court feemed to be of Opi- t p a °^ T'"
nion, That they were the lame. Ld. Raym. Rep. 215. Eafh jp Wi 3. Mod. 125.
The King v. Ingram & al. Refolvcd.
The King
V. Page, Ingram & al. S. C.
6. Indictment that the Defendants Riotofe-, Routofe, & iHicite Jfemb!a-S C. by. the
verunt, & lie afiemblati infuhum fecerunt in quendam J. R.. &c. Upon ^? meof the
Not Guilty pleaded 2 were found Guilty and the reft acquitted. It was bunfa^d^"
moved in Arreft of Judgment, That 2 cannot make a Riot, and there- Heaps, ac-
fore cannot be guilty of a Riot, and by Confequence all are acquitted ccrdingly.
by this Verdict : To which it was laid, That there is a Battery, and that l{ Mod £ 6 £
2 may be guilty of that. But per Holt Ch. J. a Riot is a fpecific Offence, [f^the'ln
and the Battery is not hid a Charge of itfdf; For thofe Adverbs, Riotole dktment had
ck Routofe go thro' the whole, and is aferibed to the Battery as well been, That
as to theAIlemblyi fo that a Difcharge of the Riot is a Difcharge like- the Def end-
wifeof the Battery, and judgment was arretted. 2 Salk. 593. pi. 2. Pafch!^''„^f r
ii W. 3. B R The King v. Heaps. DrttorbereoF
the Peace,
had committed this Riot, and Verdict had been in this Cafe, the King might have Judgment — S. C.
cited per Parker Ch. J l Salic. 5S5. pi. 5 7. Mich. 1 1 Anna;, at Nifi Priux, in the Cafeof the Queert
v. Cranage. Ld. Raym. Rep. 404. S. C. accordingly . And per Holt, The Battery is but Pari ot
ihe Riot.
7. The Caption of an Inquilition taken before 2 Jufticss for a Riot,
upon the Statute of 13 H. 4. cap. 7. was thus, (viz.) An luquijition taken
for the J$hieen in the County of H. upon the Oath &c. of iz bonefi and law-
ful Men &c. who then and there impanncllaf Jurat' & Trio? ckc. to enquire
â– of Riots contra Formam Statuf generally. Exception was taken, That
the Inquilition did not mention any Thing concerning that Statute; led non
Allocatur : For per Cur. The Juttices have Power by this Statute to en-
quire of all Riots and Routs whatfoever ; and if a forcible Entry Ui
made, they mav find according to the Statute 8 H. 6. cap. 9. and award
Retticution; For a fubfequent Statute, which inflicts a greater Punish-
ment, doth not take away the Power given by a Precedent Statute. 6
Mod. 140, 141. Pafch. 3 Anns, B. R. The Queen v. Pugh & al.
8. Seve-
2 A4 Rivers. Robbery.
8. St-vcral were indicled for a Rioc ; It was moved, That the Profecu-
tor might /tame 2 or 3 and try it againfi them, and that the reft might em-
ter into a Rule, if they were found Guilty, to plead Guilty too ; and this
was faid to be done frequently to prevent the Charge of putting them all
to plead ; And a Rule was made accordingly. 6 Mod. 212. Trin. 3
Anna?, B. R. The Queen v. Middlemore.
For more of Riots in General, See JForriblC Cnttp, CreafOtl,
and other Proper Titles.
Rivers.
Hawk 199. *• TV /T Was fined 200 1. for diverting Part of the Jliver Thames, by
cap.75 & 11 - X.V Jl* which he weakened the Current of the River to carry Barges
Common* &*â– ' tovvar ds London, and other Houfes of the King upon the River;
Nufimcc to a °d fuch a Thing cannot be done without an Ad quod Damnum ; be-
diverr a Na- caufe that River is a Highway, and alfo it ought to be bv Patent of the
vigablcRi- King for to do fuch a Thing. Noy 103. Hind v. Manfield.
ver in fuch ° ° J J
Manner as here is mentioned.
2. Who fhall be obliged to ckanfe a River, that, by being ftopp'd, be-
comes a Nufance to the Country. See Nufance (A)
For more of Rivers in General, See &tiOn, 3jnHiCttWnt& ^OflCj
and other Proper Titles.
Robbery.
(A) What is; In refpeB of the Value of the Thing
taken.
* Tho* the '• T ** ^ lt ^ e unc * er tne Value of i2d. that is taken, (as to the Va-
Thing taken JL h<* of * l d. or 2d.) it is Robbery, but fomewhat mult be taken , ;
be m of For the Making JJJ'ault only to rob, without taking fome Money or Goods, ;s
no
Robbery. 245
no Felony ; And fuch Opinions as fcem to the contrary, were maintained g^tey Vahe
by that, which then was anciently holden, Quod Voluntas reputabitur y ^feF^*
nro Facto. 3 Inii. 69. cap. 16. lony Staunf.
T -PI -C. 27. a» :
tap, 10. Hawk. PLC 97. cap. 54. S. 12. S. P.
(B) What is or amounts to a Robbery in refpe& of SeeCY) P i4
the Maimer, or Per) oh from whom.
R'
Obbery is a Felony by the Common Law, committed by a violent
AJJault upon the Per/on of another, by putting him in Fear and
tahngfrom his Per/on his Money or other Goods of any Value whatfoever.
- The Circumftance of putting one in Fear makes the Difference between Wherever a
c Robber and a Cutpurfi ; Both take it from the Perfon, but this takes it Jjâ„¢^.
Clam and Secrete without Aiiault or putting in Fear, and the Robber by ther with
violent Aifauk and putting in Fear. 3 I nit. 63. cap. 16. fuch Circum-
fhnces of
Terror as rut him into Fear, and caiifes him, by reafon.of fuch Fear, to part with his Money, the Ta-
king thereof is adjudged Roobery, whether there were any Weapon drawn or not, or whether the Per-
fon affaulted delivered his Money upon the other's Command, or afterwards gave it him upon his ceafing
to ufe Force, and begging an Alms ; For he was put into Fear by his Aflault, and gives him his Money
10 get rid of 'him. Hawk. PI. C, 96, 97. cap. 94. S. 9.
5 The Words of the Indi&ment, Violenter & Fehnice cepit, muft be Serjeant
underitood that there is an Aftual Taking in Deed, andaTaking in Law, ,- ™£ em$
and that may be when a Thief receives &c For Example : It Thieves clcal . that he
rob a true Man and find but little about him, take it, this is an Afctual who receives
Taking ; and by Means of Death compel him to J wear upon a Book to fetch my Money by
them a greater Sum, which he does and delivers it to them which they re- ^â„¢&
ceive this is a Taking in Law by them, and adjudged Robbery ; For T am lind J
Fear ''made him to take "theOath, and the Oath and Fear continuing, made him the terror of
Iting the Money, which amounts to a Taking in Law j and in this Cafe his Affimlt,
there needs no fpecial Indictment, but the general Indigent (®uodvio- ^/ e ~*
/enter & fehnice cepit) is jtifficicnt. And io it is it at the nrlt the true Man my f elfbound
for Fear deliver his Purfe &c to the Thief 3 Inil. 68. cap. 16. inConfci-
ence to give
it him fa anOath to that Purpofe, which in my Fear I was compelled by him to take may, in the Eye
of the Law, as properly be faid to take it from me> as he who actually takes it out of my Pocket with,
his own Hands. Hawk PI. C. 96. cap. 34. S. 4.
a This Word (Cepit) neceflarily implies, That the Thief muft be in *S.P. Hawk.
Poifeffion of the Thing ltolen. For Example : * If the Bag or Purfe 01 ^ ^f |£
the true Man btfafiened to his Girdle &c. and the Thief, the more ealily tho . he is noc
to take the Bag or Purfe, cuts the Girdle, whereby the Bag or Purfe tails guilty of
to the Ground, this is no Taking ; For the Thief had never any Polfef- Jobbery, he
lion thereof, & lie de Similibus: But if the thief takes up the Bag or * X&
Purfe, Winitriving had let it fall, and never took it again, this had by Fine and
been a Taking, becaufe he had it in his Polleihon ; For the Continuance Imprifbn-
of his Poifeffion is not required by Law. 3 Inil. 69. cap. 16. foHofnor
mous a Breach of the Peace.
5. The Words of the Indiament are (a Perfona) &c If the true Man, * S IP. And
fceking to eicape for the Safeguard of his Money, * cajh it into a BaJb,° A * e
R r r which 7
2^.6 Robbery.
* ~ * â– ^
Cattle in my which the Thief perceiving, takes it: This is a Taking in Lawfroni
Pretence out t ^ e p er f n, becaufe it is done at one Time. 3 Inft. 69. cap. 16.
tfire or mv Hat which fell from my Head, he may be indicted as having taken Things from my Perfon;
Hawk. PLC. 9 6 - ca P- 34 s s -
And/' it is 6. If the true Man had cafl off his Stir coat, or other uppermoft Gar-
oftbeHorfe ment, and the fame lying in his Prefe/tce 3 a Thief ajfaults him &c. and
M "^Mfib ta '^ es t ^ oe S l
^is ' s Robbery ; For that which is taken in his Pre-
fiavds^him-Jence^ is in Law taken from his Perfon. 3 Inft. 69. cap. 16.
Et fie de Si-
milibus 3 Inft. 69. cap. 1 6.
I
n fomc 7. Upon Not Guilty pleaded to an Indictment the Evidence was,
Cafes, a Man That P. and J& met W. S. and IV. f. in the Highway, where they endea-
Ztme 'where v°'t™d t0 r °b them, and for that Purpofe drew their Swords and offered
inl'ruthhe to ftrike them, thereupon JV. S. rode away one Way, and P. purftied him,
never aBually and JV. T. went another Way, and M. followed and robbed him out of Sight
had any of my or Hearing of P. and it was held that P. was as Principal, and commit-
fopffiol, u ted the R^bery, and he was hanged. And. 116. pi. 161. Hill. 26 Eliz.
v here I am Pudfey's Cafe.
robbed by
federal in one Gang, and one cf them only takes my Money, in which Cafe, in Judgment of Law, every
one of the Company fhall be faid to take it, in refpect of that Encouragement which they give to one
another, through the Hopes of mutual Afliltance in their Enterpme : Nay, tho' they mils of their
firft intended Prize, and one of them afterwards rides from the reft, and robs a third Perfon in the fame
"Highway, without their Knowledge, out of their View, and then returns to them, all are Guilty of Robbery ;
For they came together with an Intent to rob, and to aflilt one another in i'o doing. Hawk. PI. C. 96.
cap. 34 S. 7.
8. If a Carrier's Man or Son confpire to rob him, and do it accordingly,
the Carrier not being privy to it, he may fue the Hundred on the Sta-
tute of Wincon ; but the Confpiracy may be given in Evidence in Miti-
tion of Damages; Per Roll Ch. J. Style 427. Mich. 1654. Matthew v.
the Hundred of Godalmin.
9. If a Man's Servant be robbed of his Majlcfs Goods in his Mafter's Sight ,
This Jhall be taken for a robbing of the Mailer. Style 156. Mich. 1649.
Per Roll Ch. J. in Wright's Gale.
10. If one cajls away his Goods to fave thetn from a Robber, and the
Robber takes them up, and carries them awav, this is a Robbery done to
his Perfon. Per Roll. Ch. J. Sty. ij6. Mich. 1649. Wright's Cafe.
11. faking Cattle from A. which he is driving on the Highway, is a
Taking from his Perfon, and fo a Robbery ; per Powel J. Quod non fuit
negatum. 2 Salk. 641. Green v. Goddard.
Hawk PI C. I2 - 1° an Indictment againfl the Defendant for robbing one Thomas
9;. cap. 34. Holder, a Cufom-houfe Officer, of Goods belonging to Perlons unknown,
S. 11. fays, the Faft appeared upon the Evidence to be, that Holder had lately
It is certain mc ,j e a Self ure of Tea (being the Goods in CHieltion) for being run, and hici
p'rolerty"" °* clandeflinely in a Barn, and as he was riding off with, and carrying
•without any them upon the Road, the .Defendant met him, and demanded the Goods,
Colour is no jnjijling that they were his, and prcfented a Piftol to him, and threaten d to
Manner of jy#/W« if he did not deliver them. And upon that Holder faid to the Prifoner,
in the Mare. *f ^ was to give yon Part of them you would laugh at me another Time, No
circs H. P. C. the Prifoner told him he would not, and he would be contented. Where-
in Editi- upon Holder delivered him Part of the Tea ; and for taking this Parcel of
on 62. Tea fo delivered to him, the Prifoner was indicled of Robbery. The
Counfel lor the King inlilted, That by the Seifure Holder gained a Spe-
cial Property in the Tea, and tho' he made the Offer of parting with fome
of it, to fave the relt, yet the Offer was made under Terror of the Threat^
and confequently could not lefien the Offence. However the Judge who
tryed the Caufe, was of Opinion, that as this was only a. Claim of Pro-
perty by the Prilbner, the Indictment could not be maintained ; accord-
ingly
Robb ery. 24.7
ingly the Prifuner was discharged. 2 Barnard. Rep. in B. R. 174, 175.
Triii. 5 Geo. 2. The King v. Smith.
13. 7 Qeo. 2. cap. 21. S. 1. Enacts, That If any Perfon fhall, with of-
fenfive Weapon, unlawfully or malic ioipy afjav.lt, or Jhall by Menaces, or in
any violent Manner, demand Money or Goods from any Perfon, with a feloni-
ous Intent to rob fuc h Perfon; hejhall be Guilty of Felony, and fh all be tranf-
ported for f even I curs.
(C) What is a Robbery within the Statute. In refpecl:
of the Time when done.
I. HT^HO' the Statute is General, and mentions no Time, yet the Le. ^7. pT.
X Robbery mult be done in the Day-Time, and not in the Night ; " 2 "^ ci U
But the Robbery being done in January, prefendy after Sun-fet, during ^ s c B
Day-light i it was adjudged that the Hundred ihall anfwer ; becaufe it is the Name oF
a 1 ime convenient for People to travel, and be about their Bulinefs. 7
Rep. 6. a. b. Trin. 23 Eliz. Aihpole v. Evenger Hundred. P* <£»«>
, ,. mcrlwm
I^HllCrtD, and the Juftices were all clear of Opinion, that if the Robbery was done in the Nifht-
Time, the Inhabitants are not bound to make the Purfuit. — 4 Le. 2t8. pi. 3 52. S. G. Trin. 29
Eliz C. B And the Juftices were of Opinion that it being found by the Verdid:, That the Robbery
•was done Poll Occafum Solis & per Lucemdiurnam, the hundred fhould be charged; for that at filch
Time Travellers are commonly drawing to their Lodgings, and afterwards Judgment was riven for the
Plaintiff, â– And 1 5S pi. 202. S C. accordingly. S. C. Goldsb. 50. pi. 10. adjornatu'r. & 60.
pi. 1S. S. C. adjudged for the Plaintiff accordingly. So in an Action Sur le Statute de W'inton of
Hue and Cry. The Jury found, That the Robbery was done Poll Lucem ejufdem Diei & ante ortuni
Solis Anglice, after Day- break and before S:n:-rifng ; and upon this the Court advifed, and Judgment
ivas given for the Plaintiff, and a Precedent fhewn Pafch. 2S Eliz. Rot. 150. where the Robbery was
done Pcft Occafum Solis, c" 3 per diurr.um Lumen Anglicc Daylight, and there adjudged for the Plaintiff
Cro. J. 106". pi 45. Mich. 3 Jac. B. R. May v. Morley Inhabitants.
But where a Robbery was done about 3 Clock in the Morning before Day-light, the Judges all agreed
that the Hundred fhould not be charged, and commanded Judgment to be enteredaccordingly. Goldsb.
70. pi. 14. Mich. 29 & 30 Eli/.. The Cafe of the Hundred of Ounmow in Eflex. 4 Le. 59. pi. 149.
Trin. 2S Eliz. C.B S. C. by the Name of iptlboiini 1). ©immoto igUllorti), in Eflex adjudg'd ac-
cordingly ; For the Inhabitants are not bound to leave their Houfes and attend the Way in the Night-
time, and alfo becaufe the Statute appoints Watch to be kept in the Night-time from Afcenfion Day to
Michaelmas, whereas this Robbery was done the 23d of April, and Judgment was given againft the
Plaintiff.— - 4L;. 191. pi. 302. S C. reported in the fame Words. Sav. 83. pi. KJ3.S. C.
adjudged for the Defendants per tot Cur. 7 Rep. 6. b. S. C. adjudged accordingly. â– S. C. "cited as
adjudg'd. And.- 1 57. pi. 202. in the Cafe of Afhpole v. Evinger Hundred. S. P. 2 Inft. 569.
The Statute fpeak-, of Robberies done in the Day before Night, yet if a Robbery be committed in the
Adorning before Day, or in the Evening after the Day, in any Time of the Night in which Men ufe commonly to
travel, the Hundred is anfwerable for it ; but if it be at Twelve or One of the Clock in the NWit,
at which Time every one is intended to be in Bed, the Hundred is not anlwerable for the Robbery.
.Cro. E. 270. pi. 12. Hill. 54 Eliz,. in Scacc. Ridgeley v the Hundred of Warrington.
_ If a Robbery be done in Crepufcuto the Hundred fhall not be charged ; but if it be done by clear Day-
light whether it be before Sun-rife or after Sun-let it is all ene ; For the Hundred fhall be chained in
Both Cafes. Per Cur. Sty. 233. Mich. 1650. Bennet v. Hartford Hundred.
2. If Robbers drive aWaggvn, or caufe the Waggoner to drive it out of If the Jf-
the Highway in theD^'-Time, but do not rob the Waggon till Night ; this is f a " lt l:ei " A
a Robbery in the Day-Time, becaufe the firil Seilure is the Robbery, and^the Far-.
Sid. 263. pi. 13. Trin. 17 Car. 2. B. R. Pledall v. the Hundred of fy be carried
Thiftleworth. . into B. and
Robbed in
the Night, No Action lies. Per Hclc Ch> J. 11 Mod. 12. Pafch. 1 Ann. B. R. Cooperv. Bazinglloke
Hundred.
3. S. 5. 29 Car. 2. cap. 7. S. 5. Ena£b, That if any Perfon travelling on a Before the _
Sunday Jhall be robbed, he pall be difabled to bring any Aftion againfi ^Making this
Hundred; but the Inhabitants pall make Hue and Cry upon Notice of A^ Pe r fon 'who
Robbery,
2 a8 Robbery.
twveU'dup-JJ^M-, upon Pain of forfeiting to the Crown, as much as wight havi
on the Sab- fr aft recovered againjl the Hundred, ij this Act had not been made.
SwTWof Divine Service was robbed, and this being found by Special Verdict, the Queflion was,
Whether the Hundred was chargeable, and byHaughton, Doderidge, and Crooke J. adjudged, That
!*«« but Moumaeue Ch. 1. e contra totis Viribus, as the Reporter faid he heard. 2 Roll. Rep. 59.
T^Hund^fSXsCafe-! Wate v. the Hundred ofStokeS.C. Cro.J. 45 6. pi. jj. accord-
inrfv toeether v. ith the Reafons of the Judges Pro and Con, becuufe, as it fays, it was a leading Cafe,
and had neverbefbre beenqueflioned S C. adjudged accordingly Godb. iSo. pi. ;97-
But where . Gentleman and his Wife had been at the Wife's hather s Houle from the iff of March
m the 10th of April following, and were then, being a Sunday, going to the Parijb Cburcb z Miles dijlant,
wirh the Father in his Coich, and were robbed going thither, it was infilled that this being agoing to
the Parifh Church could not be called a Travelling « ithin this Statute, which was made for the boner
Obfervaticnof the Lord's Dav, and confirms the Srarutes made for the Pubhck Exercife of Religion,