1777-12-19 (static/transcriptions/1777/12/049.jpg)

1777. Sessions. [Friday] Dec. 19.

and Impey approved it. Probably Impey did not know exactly [ILL] of the facts.
After I had written this the objection was started, but whether by Chambers or Impey I am not sure; and we were all of opinion that Betty being in another room, with no door from One immediately into the other, and the door of the room where the scalding was being shut. Betty could not be said to be present, consequently was not properly charged in the Indictment with being a principal, but must be acquitted on this Indictment, and Impey said so, aloud to the Jury, and to Mr. Moss, Councel for Betty.
In Foster’s Crown Law, [Discourse III of Accomplices, Chapter II of Accessaries in Felony, Sect:1 paragraph 6, page 361 Octavo Edition] It is said, if a Man be Indicted as Principal and Acquitted he can not afterward be indicted as accessary before the fact, but Foster says “upon what ground I know not” so that Foster appears to disapprove this Doctrine, and I think the present case, very strongly proves the mischief of the Doctrine. It may often happen that the distinction of present or absent may be very nice. It is a Mixture of Law and Fact.
The Fact was fully proved against Peggy
/ and