266 THE SHOOTER'S GUIDE. 



them. Indeed you are not obliged to go further 

 than the words of this act of parliament of the 22 

 and 23 Car. 2; and that was the case of R. v. 

 Pickels. But, however, in that case the present 

 point was established, and taken to be indisputable. 

 There is a known distinction between exceptions in 

 a statute by way of proviso (which need riot be set 

 forth) and those in the purview of the act \ and to 

 this point there is a very strong case (R. v. Bell, 

 Post. 430.) upon an indictment for having coining- 

 instruments in his custody. It was said, that in a 

 conviction it is sufficient to pursue the words of the 

 act of parliament ; but I think that it is not so, and 

 there are many cases where that has been ruled 

 otherwise. Among other instances, it was deter- 

 mined in R. v. Chapman, E. T. 28 G. 2. upon a 

 conviction of a person for robbing an orchard, which 

 the court held not sufficient ; but it ought to have 

 appeared of what and how the orchard was robbed, 

 that they might judge whether it were a robbery 

 within the meaning of the 45 Eliz. c. 7- Mr. J. 

 Foster also concurred, and said, that on negative acts 

 of parliament the point is fully settled and establish- 

 ed, that the particular qualifications mentioned in 

 the purview of them must be negatively specified in 

 convictions made upon them. And, by the court 

 unanimously, the conviction was quashed, 1 Burr. 

 148. 



H. 26 G. 3. R, v. Thomas Spencer Crowther. 

 This was a conviction before a justice on 5 Anne, c. 



