house, which were successfully provided for by the English statutes.  How far that act will go to the
repeal of the former acts of assembly on the subject, it is not necessary to enquire; but considering
the apparent intention of the legislature in passing the act of 1809, it is not deemed proper that this
statute, or any other taking away the benefit of clergy from the offence of larceny from the house, or
house breaking should be incorporated with our laws, even if it should appear that they are not all
virtually replaced by that act.
    As to the 3d class, highway robbery, there are in the provincial records several cases of indictments
for that offence, which appear clearly to have been under this statute connected with 23 hen.
8, Ch. 1.  There was no act of assembly for the punishment of this crime; but the act of 1715, Ch.
26, which empowered the county courts to hold plea of thieving and stealing goods, &c. excepted
robbery, burglary and house breaking.
    The 6th section of the act of 1809, provides for the punishment of this offence, so that it is brought
within the remarks made as to house breaking.  As to the 4th class, stealing horses, geldings or
mares, (which by 2 and 3 Edw. 6, Ch. 33, was extended to stealing one horse, &c.) the like observations
may be made respecting the convictions for that offence under these statutes, before the act of
assembly of 1744, ad it is likewise provided for by the act of 1809, Ch. 138, S. 6.  The 5th class,
I have found no instance of any prosecution for.
    It is further to be observed as to this statute, that the 13th section declared that wilful killing by
poisoning, should be adjudged murder; the effect of which was only to repeal the statute, 22 Hen. 8,
Ch. 9, by which it had been made treason, and punishable by boiling to death; but supposing this
section to have been necessary and in force in the province, it is not necessary or proper that it
should be continued.
    As to the 22d section respecting two witnesses, see the note on 25 Edw., St. 5, Ch. 2.
 

CHAP. 23.  The repeal of an act made in the 32d year of king Henry the eighth,
    which was made, that marriage contracted in the face of the church, and consummate
    with bodily knowledge, to be deemed lawful, any former contract notwithstanding.

    See the note on 32 Hen. 8. Ch. 38.

    There is reason to believe that this statute extended to the province, although no cases have been
found to shew that recourse was had to it, nor would the circumstances appear on the face of the
indictments in the provincial court, though in trials in the counties under commissions of oyer and
terminer it might have appeared; as in England, although the party is indictable in the county where
the death happened, the stroke is to be alleged in the county where it was given.
    It is to be observed also, that in the act of 1789, Ch. 22, the doubt expresses in the preamble, was
as to counties on the separate shores, which cases were provided for, as also those of a mortal stroke
on the water, and death on the land, and vice versa.  And it is fairly to be presumed that this case
would have been provided for, if it had been thought doubtful.