« EelmineJätka »
Servants, Clerks, Sect. XLVIII. And, for preventing the difficulties that &c.; Larcenies have been experienced in the prosecution of the last-mentioned and Embezzlement by.
offenders, be it enacted, That it shall be lawful to charge in
the indictment and proceed against the offender for any num7& 8 G. 4, c. 29. ber of distinct acts of embezzlement not exceeding three,
which Distinct acts of
may have been committed by him against the same embezzlement master, within the space of six calendar months from the first may be charged to the last of such acts; and in every such indictment, ex. in the same in- cept where the offence shall relate to any chattel, it shall be dictment.
sufficient to allege the embezzlement to be of money, without As to allegation specifying any particular coin or valuable security; and such and proof of the allegation, so far as regards the description of the property, property embezzled.
shall be sustained, if the offender shall be proved to have embezzled any amount, although the particular species of coin or valuable security of which such amount was composed shall not be proved; or if he shall be proved to have embezzled any piece of coin or valuable security, or any portion of the value thereof, although such piece of coin or valuable secu. rity may have been delivered to him in order that some part of the value thereof should be returned to the party delivering the same, and such part shall have been returned accordingly.
Note.-See Russ. & Ry. 23. 56. 63. 80. 125. 145. 160. 198. 221. 267. 299.303. 319. 335. 349. 402.403. 516. The new statute enables the prosecutor to charge three distinct acts of embezzlement by the same individual, provided they have been committed against the same master within six calendar months from the first to the last.
Indictment against a Clerk or Servant for robbing his Master. Hertfordshire, 2 The jurors for our lord the King upon their to wit.
Joath present, that A. late of the parish of in the county of
labourer, heretofore, to wit, on, &c. at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, was clerk (servant] to one B. and that the said A. being such clerk as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, and whilst he was such clerk (servant) as aforesaid, divers, to wit, [nine bank notes) for the payment of divers sums of money,
amounting in the whole to a certain sum of money, to wit, the Servants, Clerks, sum of ninety pounds of lawful money of Great Britain, and of 8c.; Larcenies the value of nine pounds of like lawful money*, of the goods, and Embezzlechattels, monies and property of the said B. his said master, ment by. then and there being found †, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the form of the statute in that case made 7& 8 G.4, c. 29. and provided, and against the peace of our said lord the King, his crown and dignity.
Second Count : Common larceny.
Evidence. Here, as upon ordinary occasions, it becomes necessary to prove a larceny of the goods lost, together with the ownership or possession of them as alleged in the indictment; and it must further appear that the prisoner was the clerk or servant of B. as the case may be. But although the proof fail as to his being in the service of B. he may still be convicted under the second count.
Indictment against a Clerk or Servant for Embecclement. Hertfordshire 6, 1 The jurors for our Lord the King upon their to wit.
Joath present, that A. late of the parish of in the county of
labourer, heretofore, to wit, on, &c. at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, was clerk to one B. (servant to one B.] [employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant to one B.) and that the said A. being such clerk [&c.] as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, did, by virtue of his said employment as such clerk as aforesaid, and whilst he was employed as such clerk as aforesaid, receive and take into his possession for, in the name, and on the account of his said master, divers, to wit, nine bank notes [&c. see last precedent, and describe the property em
• See Stark. Crim. Pl. p. 455, note (m).
+ The statute has these words, " or in the possession or power of his master,” which is deserving of attention, if the master have merely a possession of the goods. The indictment would then state the notes to be in the “ possession and power of the said B.”
# The county where the embezzlement was committed, or if that be not known, the county where the prisoner ought to have accounted for it.
Servants, Clerks, bezzled] and that the said A. so being such clerk as aforesaid, fc.; Larcenies having so received and taken into his possession the said (bank and Embezzle- notes) for, in the name and on the account of his said master, ment by.
afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, the
same did fraudulently and feloniously embezzle; and so the 7&S G.4, c. 29. the said A. on the said jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that he
day of of the year aforesaid, with force and arms at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, the said [bank notes) from his said master, the said bank notes being on the same day and year aforesaid, the property of his said master, for, in the name of, and on whose account the same were received by and taken into the possession of him the said A. being such clerk as aforesaid, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the form of the statute, &c. and against the peace of our said lord the King, his crown and dignity.
Second Count: Common larceny.
Evidence. The chief heads of evidence in this case are ;--1. The service; 2. The receipt of the articles by virtue of the prisoner's employment; 3. The receipt on account of the master; 4. The offence, namely, the embezzlement.
1. A servant.--Although the receipt of money be not the usual employment of the servant, and although the servant be only occasionally employed, the offence may be committed.
2. By virtue of the employment. This must be shown, and it was so held in the case of the apprentice. Russ. & Ry, 80, Rer v. Mellish.
3. That the money was received on the master's account.And it was held that money was so received, although the master gave
it to a customer for the purpose of trying the servant's honesty. 2 Leach, C.C. 912, Rer v. Whittingham.
4. The embezzlement.—This is evidenced by the prisoner not having accounted for the money to his master; by his ab. sconding, together with other circumstances, which may satisfy the jury
of his fraudulent intention. On referring to the 48th section above set out, it will be found that the difficulty of identifying the property stolen has been considerably lessened, especially with regard to the embezzlement of coin.
SEWERS, COMMISSIONERS OF.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT.
7 Geo. 4, c. 64.
7 Geo. 4, c. 64. Sect. XVIII. And, with respect to property under com- In indictments missioners of sewers, be it enacted, That in any indictment for offences or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed on
sewers, the or with respect to any sewer or other matter within or under
property may the view, cognizance or management of any commissioners of be said in the sewers, it shall be sufficient to state any such property to commissioners. belong to the commissioners of sewers, within or under whose view, cognizance or management any such things shall be, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any of such commissioners.
The 22 & 23 Car. 2, c. 11, s. 12; 1 Anne, st. 2, c. 9, as to
the casting away of ships ; 24 Geo. 2, c. 45; 33 Geo. 3, C. 67, s. 5 & 6; 43 Geo. 3, c. 113, repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27.
7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29.
7& 8 G.4, c. 29. Sect. XVII. And be it enacted, That if any person shall Stealing goods steal any goods or merchandize in any vessel, barge or boat from a vessel in of any description whatsoever, in any port of entry or dis- a port, river or
canal, &c. charge, or upon any navigable river or canal, or in any creek belonging to or communicating with any such port, river or canal, or shall steal any goods or merchandize from any dock, wharf, or quay adjacent to any such port, river, canal, or creek, every such offender, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to any of the punishments which the court may award as hereinbefore last-mentioned.
MALICIOUS INJURIES Act. 7 & 8 G.4,c. 30.
7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30. Setting fire to or Sect. IX. And be it enacted, That if any person shall unlawdestroying a fully and maliciously set fire to, or in anywise destroy any ship ship.
or vessel, whether the same be complete or in an unfinished state, or shall unlawfully and maliciously set fire to, cast away, or in anywise destroy any ship or vessel, with intent thereby to prejudice any owner or part owner of such ship or vessel, or of any goods on board the same, or any person that hath underwritten or shall underwrite any policy of insurance upon such ship or vessel, or on the freight thereof, or upon any goods on board the same, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being convicted thereof, shall suffer death as
a felon. Damaging a Sect. X. And be it enacted, That if any person shall unlawship otherwise fully and maliciously damage, otherwise than by fire, any than by fire.
ship or vessel, whether complete or in an unfinished state, with intent to destroy the same, or to render the same useless, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and, being con. victed thereof, shall be liable at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years ; and, if a male, to be once, twice or thrice publicly or privately whipped (if the court shall so think fit), in addition to such imprisonment.
Note.-A capital felony is again done away with, under the 17th section of the new Larceny Act; and, when it is remembered that the stealing goods from vessels in a navigable river seldom failed to bring upon the offender the utmost severity of the law, it is gratifying to record so striking a relaxation of extreme punishment. See East. P. C. 647, Rer v. Grimes, Rex v. Pike ; Russell & Ryan, 92, Rex v. Mador; Id. 118, Rex v. Van Muyen; Id. 123, Rex v. Curling.
Where the ship was stranded upon a rock, and, being got off, was easily righted, a party was acquitted upon a charge of casting away and destroying the vessel. De Londo's Case, East, P.C. 1098.