not be made The entry need not be made on the same night as the Entry need breaking, though both must be done in the night time: (a) the same but this point will be more properly mentioned in treating night as the breaking. of the time at which this offence may be committed. be the act of the whole party engaged in the trans action. The doctrine which has been laid down, respecting princi- A breaking and entering pals in the second degree, or aiders and abettors, in a former by one, will part of this work, will apply to the case of burglary; and make the breaking and entering by one the act of all the party engaged in the transaction, and legally present while the fact is committed. (b) So that if A., B., and C., go upon a common purpose and design to commit a burglary in the house of D., and A. only actually break and enter the house, B. stand near the door but do not enter, and C. stand at the lane's end, orchard gate, &c. to watch, this will be burglary in them all; and they are all in law principals. (e) infant. Neither will the offence be the less the act of the party Entry and stealing effrom his having effected the entry and the stealing by fected by means of an infant under the age of discretion. Thus, if means of an A., a man of full age, take a child of seven or eight years old, well instructed by him in the villanous art, as some such there are; and the child goes in at the window, takes goods out, and delivers them to A,. who carries them away, this is burglary in A., though the child who made the entry, be not guilty, by reason of his infancy. (d) II. The breaking and entering, which have been thus de- of the mansion-house. scribed, must take place in a mansion, or dwelling-house; which latter term is now generally adopted in indictments for burglary. And in treating of such mansion, or dwellinghouse, it will be proper to enquire, first, as to what shall be Ward, Ch. B. Powis and Tracy, Js. and the Recorder; and they thought this the extremity of the law: and, on a subsequent conference with the other Judges, Holt, C. J. and Powell J. doubting, and inclining to another opinion, (a) 1 Hale 551. 4 Black. Com. 226. (c) 1 Hale 555. (d) 1 Hale 555, 556. What shall be considered a mansionhouse. so considered; secondly, how far it must be inhabited; and, thirdly, as to the person to be deemed the owner of it; for the ownership must be correctly stated in the indictment. Every house for the dwelling and habitation of man is taken to be a mansion-house in which burglary may be committed. (e) And a portion only of a building may come under this description. Thus where, upon an indictment for burglary, it appeared that the prosecutor rented only certain rooms of a house, namely, a shop and parlour, in which the burglary was committed, but that the owner did not inhabit any part of the house, and only occupied the cellar, it was holden that the shop and parlour were to be considered as the mansion-house of the prosecutor.(ƒ) And sets of chambers, in a college, or an inn of court, are to all purposes considered as distinct dwelling houses; being often held under distinct titles, and, in their nature and manner of occupation, as unconnected with each other, as if they were under separate roofs. (g) A loft, situated over a coachhouse and stables, in a public mews, and converted into lodging rooms, has also been holden to be a dwelling-house. It appeared that the prosecutor, who was coachman to a lady, rented the rooms at a yearly rent; but that he had never paid any rent; and that the rooms were not rated in the parish books as dwelling houses, but as appurtenances to the coach-house and stables: that the way to the coachhouse and stables was down a passage, out of the public mews, to a staircase which led to these rooms, and the entrance to which staircase was through a door, which was never fastened, but that there was a door at the top of the staircase to the rooms which was locked at night, and was broken by the prisoner. It was contended, on behalf of (e) 3 Inst. 64. (f) Rogers's case, 1 Leach 89, 428. 2 East. P. C. c. 15. s. 19. The points respecting different mansions in the same house will be considered presently, in treating of the ownership of the mansion-house. (g) 1 Hale 522. 556. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 38. s. 18. Evans and Fynche (case of). Cro. Car. 473. 4 Black. Com. 252. 2 East. P. C. c. 15. s. 17. p. 505. the prisoner, that these rooms, which probably were originally intended as mere hay-lofts, did not, in contemplation of law, form such mansions, or dwelling-houses, as to become the subject of burglary: but the objection was overruled by the court, who thought that the circumstance of these rooms being situated over the coach-house and stables would not alter the nature of the case; and that they were to all intents and purposes the habitation and domicile of the prosecutor and his family.(h) Burglary, however, cannot be committed by breaking into any inclosed ground, or any booth, or tent, erected in a market, or fair, though the owner may lodge therein; for the law regards thus highly nothing but permanent edifices; and the lodging of the owner in so frail a tenement no more makes it burglary to break it open than it would be to uncover a tilted waggon, in the same circumstances. (¿) outhouses, house. The mansion-house not only includes the dwelling-house, Buildings, but also the outhouses, such as warehouses, barns, stables, &c. parcel of cow houses, or dairy-houses, though not under the same roof, the mansionor joining contiguous to the dwelling-house, provided they are parcel thereof. (k) The material question, therefore, upon this subject, respecting such outhouses, will be whether they are or are not parcel of the dwelling-house. It is clear that any outhouse, within the curtilage, or same common fence, as the mansion itself, must be con (h) Turner's case, O. B. 1784, cor. Gould and Buller, Js.; and Perryn, B. 1 Leach 305. 2 East. P. C. c. 15. s. 9. p. 492. Mr. J. Buller did not give any opinion; but said he would save the case for the opinion of the judges, who afterwards considered of the case, and were of opinion that this was a dwelling-house; and the prisoner, who had been acquitted of breaking and entering in the night time, had judgment for stealing to the (i) 1 Hale 557. 1 Hawk. P. C. (k) 3 Inst. 64. 1 Hale 558. Sum. 82. 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 38. s. 21. 4 Black. Com. 225. Buildings, outhouses, &c. not parcel of the mansion-house. sidered as parcel of the mansion; for the capital house protects and privileges all its branches and appurtenants, if within the curtilage, or homestall. (7) And though there be no common inclosure, or curtilage, yet, if the outhouses adjoin the dwelling-house, and be occupied as parcel thereof, they may still be considered as parts of the mansion. Thus, it was holden that the breaking and entering in the night time into a bakehouse, eight or nine yards distant from the dwelling-house, with only a pale reaching between them, was burglary. (m) And in a case where it appeared that the prosecutor, a farmer, had a dwelling-house, in which he lived, a stable, a cottage, a cowhonse, and barn, all in one range of building, in the order mentioned, and under one roof, but not inclosed by any wall or court-yard, and having no communication from either to the other within; and that the burglary charged was committed in the barn; the conviction of the prisoner was holden right by the judges, upon a conference, on the ground that the barn, which was under the same roof, was parcel of and enjoyed with the dwellinghouse. (n) In this case the cottage was occupied by a servant of the prosecutor, who paid no rent; only an abatement was made in his wages, on account of his family being to reside in the cottage: and though the judges held (with the exception of Buller, J. who doubted) that this amounted only to a licence to the servant to lodge in the cottage, and not to a letting of it to him; yet, many of them inclined to the opinion that even if there had been a demise of the cottage to the servant, the barn would still have continued part of the prosecutor's dwelling-house, in point of law. (0) Where the outhouse is at all separated from the dwellinghouse, and not within the same curtilage, or common fence, it will not be protected by the mere circumstance of its being (1) 1 Hale 558, 9. 1 Hawk. P.C. (n) Brown's case, Newcastle Sum. Ass. 1787, cor. Wilson, J. 2 East. P. C. c. 15. s. 10. p. 493. (0) 2 East. P. C. c. 15. s. 14. p. 502. in the occupation of the owner of the dwelling-house; but in such case the fact of its being parcel of the dwellinghouse, or not, is one which should be found by the jury upon the evidence submitted to them. Thus, where a special verdict stated that the prisoner broke and entered, in the night time, an outhouse in the possession of one George Shore, and occupied by him with his dwelling-house, and separated therefrom by an open passage, eight feet wide, with intent to commit a felony; and that the outhouse was not connected with the dwelling-house by any fence inclosing them both; the judges were unanimously of opinion. that, from the manner in which the jury had found the facts, it was impossible to consider this outhouse as part of the dwelling-house; and that the jury should have found it parcel of the dwelling-house, if it were so. (p) Therefore, however near the outhouse may be to the dwelling-house, it will not be protected, unless it be parcel of the dwelling-house, and be so found; and if the outhouse be far remote from the dwelling-house, so as not reasonably to be esteemed parcel of it, as if it stand a bow-shot off, and not within or near the curtilage, it is clearly no part of the mansion-house, and the breaking of it is not burglary. (q) The as committed by breaking into a centre building, used for purposes It was holden, in a modern case, that burglary could not Eggington's case. Held, be committed by breaking into a centre building, used for that burglary purposes of trade, but having no internal communication could not be with the dwelling houses which formed the wings. building was stated, in the first count of the indictment, as the dwelling-house of M. R. Boulton; in the second, the dwelling-house of John Bush; and in the third, as the dwelling-house of William Nelson. It appeared, upon the evidence, that the place broken into was a centre building, having two wings; that in such centre building an extensive business was carried on, relating to different manufactories, wings. in which one Matthew Boulton was concerned with M. R. Boulton, William Nelson, and several other persons; and (p) Garland's case. 1 Leach 144. 2 East. P. C. c. 15. s. 10. p. 493. (q) 1 Hale 559. 1 Leach 144, note (a). of trade, but having no communica tion with the dwellinghouses which formed the |