Page images
PDF
EPUB

YORK Som. Assizes, 1828.

In larceny it

is not neces

party charged should be

Jones' and Smith's Case.

Prisoners were indicted for stealing a pocket

sary that the book and some bank-notes from the bar of a public-house. They were not seen to do the act, and no part of the property was found upon them.

seen to do the act, or that any of the

property stolen should be

him.

Per Hullock, B., to the jury." If such facts found upon and circumstances are proved, as satisfy you beyond all reasonable doubt, it is not necessary that the property, or any part of it, should have been found upon the prisoners, nor that any eye should have seen the theft committed."

but the prisoner opposed it, and said he would pay for them by-and-bye, at the King's Arms. Baker went to the King's Arms at the appointed time, but the prisoner was not there; and on going back to the market he found that the prisoner had driven away the oxen and sold them, and he could not be found till some time after, when he was apprehended.

Baker, on the trial, swore that he did not consider the oxen to have been sold and delivered to the prisoner until the money should be paid.

Garrow, B., left it to the jury to say if they believed the prisoner originally intended to convert the oxen to his own use without paying for them; and they returned for answer that they believed he never had any intention of paying for them.

The Judges were unanimously of opinion, that, under these circumstances, the prisoner was properly convicted of felony, and sentence of death was recorded against him.

Holroyd, J., delivered the judgment.

Nelson's and Others' Case.

YORK Sum. Assizes, 1828.

"In larceny, if several be engaged, they are Encouragers equally operators, if they encourage one another, are guilty. though no property be found on any one of them."

Per Hullock, B.

Jones' Case.

LANCASTER Sum. Assizes, 1828.

"In order to constitute the crime of larceny, it is In larceny, it

been

is not neces

sary that the property stoIf len should be actually car

not necessary that the property laid to have
stolen should have been actually carried away.
it be removed from one part of the premises to an-
other, with intent to carry it away, it is an asporta-
tion sufficient to sustain the indictment."-Per Bay-
ley, J.

ried away.

Anonymous.

YORK Sum. Assizes, 1824.

from the bot

boot of a

Hullock, B., informed the bar, that, on a point re- Lifting a bag served by Denman, Common-Serjeant, the Judges tom of the had resolved that the raising up an article from the stage-coach boot of a coach with intent to carry it away, was an asportation, though the party was detected in act, and prevented by the guard.

the

Note. The case alluded to by the learned Judge was that of Rex v. Walsh, R. & M. C. C. 14, and was as follows:

:

The prisoner was charged with stealing a leathern bag containing small parcels, the property of William Ray, the guard to the Exeter mail.

is an asporta

tion, though removed en

the bag be not

tirely from the boot.

At the trial, it appeared, that the bag was placed in the front boot, and the prisoner, sitting on the box, took hold of the upper end of the bag and lifted it up from the bottom of the boot on which it rested. He then handed the upper part of the bag to a person who stood beside the wheel on the pavement, and both had hold of it together, endeavouring to pull it out of the boot, with a common intent to steal it. Before they were able to obtain complete possession of the bag, and while they were so engaged in trying to draw it out, they were interrupted by the guard, and dropped the bag.

The prisoner was found guilty, but the facts above stated were specially found by the jury in answer to questions put to them by the Common-Serjeant.

The Common-Serjeant entertaining some doubts whether the prisoner could be truly said to have "stolen, taken, and carried away" the bag, respited the judgment, in order that the opinion of the Judges might be taken on the case.

In Easter Term, 1824, the Judges met, and held the conviction right, being of opinion that there was a complete asportation of the bag.

* William Thompson was tried before Mr. Baron Garrow, at the Winter Assizes for the county of Sussex, 1825, for stealing from the person of John Hillman, a pocket-book and four promissory notes of 1. each.

The evidence of the prosecutor was this:-"I was at a fair at East Grinstead; I felt a pressure of two persons,

Milburne's Case.

CARLISLE Sum. Assizes, 1829.

larceny,

A coat was left lying upon a stone seat by the To constitute road-side, and was soon afterwards found in the pri- there must be

soner's possession.

It

one on each side of me; I had secured my book in an inside
front pocket of my coat; I felt a hand between my coat and
waistcoat; I could feel the motion of the knuckles; I was
satisfied the prisoner was attempting to get my book out.
The other person had hold of my right arm, and I forced it
from him, and thrust it down to my book, in doing which I
just brushed the prisoner's hand and arm; the book was just
lifted out of my pocket; it returned into my pocket.
was out; how far I cannot tell; I saw a slight glance of
a man's hand down from my breast. I secured the prisoner
after a severe struggle, and a desperate attempt at escape,
in "which he was assisted by twenty or thirty persons."
Upon cross-examination, the witness said—“ My coat was
open, the pocket was not above a quarter of an inch deeper
than the book; I am satisfied the book was drawn from my
pocket; it was an inch above the top of the pocket." Upon
this evidence, it was insisted for the prisoner that the of-
fence did not amount to a taking from the person.

The learned Judge recommended it to the jury, if they were satisfied that the prisoner removed the book with intent to steal it, to find him guilty. The jury found the prisoner guilty; but the learned Judge respited the execution of the sentence until the opinion of the Judges could be taken on the point.

The Judges were unanimously of opinion that the simple larceny was complete. But Abbott, C. J., Bayley, J., Park, J., Holroyd, J., Burrough, J., and Littledale, J., thought that the prisoner was not guilty of stealing from the person. Garrow, B., Hullock, B., and Gaselee, J., were of a contrary opinion.

S. C. R. & M. C. C. 78.

an animus furandi at the time of taking the property.

Bayley, B., told the jury, that, in order to the prisoner's being found guilty of this charge, they must be of opinion, that, at the time the prisoner took the coat, he did so animo furandi. That he might have taken it very honestly, intending, if it was inquired after, to restore it to the owner, or he might have taken it intending to make it his own.

LETTERS.

YORK

Sum. Assizes, 1828.

LANCASTER Sp. Assizes, 1829.

See Goodwin's case, ante, p. 100, tit. “Evidence;" and p. 212, tit. "Indictment," as to what constitutes a service under the Post-office.

See Grubbin's case, ante, p. 216, tit. "Indictment," as to what amounts to a secreting of a letter.

LANCASTER
Sp. Assizes,

1830.

9 Anne, c. 10,

s. 40.

Meirelles v. Banning.

This was an action of debt brought by the plain

A delivery of tiff against the Post-master of Liverpool, for penalties

letters bond

fide to the as- under the stat. 9 Anne, c. 10, s. 40*.

signees of a bankrupt is not a wittingly, willingly, and knowingly," detaining letters within the stat. of Anne.

2 B. & Adol. 909.

* An act for establishing a General Post-office for all her Majesty's dominions, &c.

Sect. 40. "And whereas abuses may be committed by wilfully opening, embezzling, detaining, and delaying of letters

« EelmineJätka »