draft on the company for $200. A. afterwards stated, at a meeting of the committee of management of the company, that he gave the note for $250, because B. told him that M., a broker, had discounted the note for $50; and that he (B.) could not get it discounted for a less sum. B. himself stated at the meeting that he had been obliged to pay M. the $50 for discounting the note; and that M. had entrusted him with the collection of it, upon which representations he obtained from the treasurer of the company the money to pay the note. It was afterwards discovered that M. had never discounted the note, and that, shortly after the note was paid, B. himself admitted that it was he, and not M. who had discounted it, and that he had charged $50 for doing so. Whereupon both A. and B. were convicted on an indictment for obtaining, by false pretences, the $50, the money of D. and others, the shareholders in the company, with intent to defraud:-Held, that the conviction was bad, and that this did not constitute a false pretence under the 4 & 5 Vic., c. 25, s. 45, nor under the 18 Vic., c, 92, s. 12, and that a shareholder in such company cannot commit larceny from the company, nor be guilty of obtaining money by false pretences, inasmuch as, being a shareholder, he is joint owner of the funds and property of the company. (a)

The Police Court of the City of Toronto is a Court of Justice within the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 21, s. 18, and an indictment charging the stealing "a certain information made and subscribed by one J. M.," at the Police Court of the said city, etc., shews an offence, within the meaning of the Statute. (b)

Maliciously destroying an information or record of the said Court is felony within the same Act.

(a) Reg. v. St. Louis, 10 L. C. R. 34.
(b) Reg. v. Mason, 32 U. C. Q. B. 246.

An indictment, describing an offence within this section as feloniously stealing an information taken in a Police Court, is sufficient after verdict. (a)

The Con. Stat. Can., c. 92, s. 26, did not make it an offence to steal an authentic copy of an acte or deed passed before a notary. (b)

A party could not be prosecuted, under the 4 & 5 Vic., c. 25, s. 34, for stealing fruit, "growing in a garden,” unless the bough of the tree upon which the fruit was hanging was within the garden. It was not sufficient that the root of the tree was within the garden. (c)

In estimating the amount of the injury, under the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 21, s. 21, the injury done to two or more trees may be added together, provided the trees are damaged at one and the same time, or so nearly at the same time as to form one continuous transaction. (d)

Before the passing of the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 21, ss. 5 and 6, it was necessary that there should be a separate indictment for each act of larceny, or the prosecutor must have proved that the articles were all taken at the same time, or at several times so near to each other as to form parts of one continuing transaction, otherwise the Court would have put the prosecutor to elect for which act of larceny he would proceed. (e)

The only difference created by this Statute is, that three different acts may now be proved on one indictment for larceny, instead of, as formerly, only one. The law, which decides whether there are several acts, or only one, is the same as before that Statute. (ƒ)

Before the Act is applicable, it must be established

(a) Reg. v. Mason, 32 U. C. Q. B. 246.

(b) Reg. v. M'Ginnis, 7 L. C. J. 311.

(c) M Donald, v. Cameron, 4 U. C. Q. B. 1. See 32 & 33 Vic. c. 21, s. 26.

(d) Reg. v. Shepherd, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 118; 37 L. J. (M. C.) 45.

(e) Reg. v. Smith, Ry. & M. 295; Arch. Cr. Pldg. 315.

(f) Reg. v. Firth, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 175, per Bovill, C. J.

that there were takings at different times, which can be so calculated that it may be shewn that there is six months from the first to the last of such takings. It is only in these cases that any question arises about election. Before the act, if the takings were continuous, there was only one taking, and if there were several takings, the prisoner could only be convicted on one of them. (a) And this is still the law. (b)

A. stole gas for the use of a manufactory, by means of a pipe, which drew off the gas from the main, without allowing it to pass through the meter. The gas from this pipe was burned every day, and turned off at night. The pipe was never closed at its junction with the main, and, consequently, always remained full of gas:-Held that, as the pipe always remained full, there was, in fact, a continuous taking of the gas, and not a series of separate takings; and, even if the pipe had not been thus kept full, the taking would have been continuous, as it was substantially all one transaction. (c)

An indictment for larceny, drawn up according to the the form given by the Con. Stats. Can., c. 99, s. 51, was held valid in arrest of judgment, notwithstanding objection that the value of the articles stolen was not alleged, nor was it stated that they were of any value, nor were they alleged to be the property of any person. (d)

The species of coin, or the nature of the bank notes, need not be alleged in any indictment for the larceny of money. (e)

On an indictment for stealing money, the property, etc., of A. B., against the form of the Statute, etc., it need not

(a) Reg. v. Firth, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 175, per Bovill, C. J.; Reg. v. Bleasdale, 2 C. & K. 765.

(b) Ib. per Bovill, C. J.

(c) Reg. v. Firth, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 172; 38 L. J. (M. C.) 54.

(d) Reg. v. Dorion, 8 L. C. J. 281.

(e) Reg. Driscoll, 8 L. C. J 288.

be proved at the trial that the bank notes which the prisoner is accused of stealing, nor any one of them, are or is genuine, nor need the value of the notes be proved, nor that any money was due on them, and remaining unsatisfied. Nor need the existence of the banks, whose notes are pretended to have been issued, be proved. Nor is it any objection that the evidence shews that the money stolen was bank notes, if anything at all, whilst the indictment charged theft of coin. (a)

An indictment under the corresponding English section (b) of the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 21, s. 15, for stealing a valuable security, must particularize the kind of valuable security stolen, and any material variance between the description in the indictment and the evidence, if not amended, will be fatal. (c)

If, upon an indictment for stealing as the servant of the prosecutor, money alleged to be his property, it appears, from the evidence, that the prisoner stole the money from him, but that he was not his servant, the allegation in the indictment that he was his servant may be rejected as surplusage, and the prisoner may be convicted of simple larceny. (d)

An indictment charging the prisoner, with stealing bank notes "of the moneys, goods, and chattels of one J. B.," sufficiently lays the property in the notes as the words, "moneys, goods, and chattels" may be rejected as surplusage, and the indictment would then read "bank notes of one J. B." (e) As stealing bank notes is expressly made larceny, their legal character, as chattels or otherwise, is not in question, because stealing them eo nomine is made felony. (ƒ)

(a) Reg. v. Driscoll, 8 L. C. J. 288.

(b) 24 & 25 Vic., c. 96, s. 27.

(c) Reg. v. Lowrie, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 61; 36 L. J. (M. C.) 24.

(d) Reg. v. Jennings, 4 U. C. L. J. 166; Dears. & B. 447.

(e) Reg. v. Saunders, 10 U. C. Q. B. 544; Reg. v. Radley, 2 C. & K. 974. (f) Reg. v. Saunders, supra, 544, per Robinson, C. J.

The prisoner was sent by his fellow workman to their common employer to get the wages due to all of them. He received the money in a lump sum, wrapped up in paper with the names of the workmen, and the sum due to each written inside :-Held, that he received the money, as the agent of his fellow-workmen, and not as the servant of his employer, and as the money belonged to the workmen, it was wrongly described as the property of the employer. (a) A boy, of fourteen years of age, living with, and assisting his father, in his business without wages, at one o'clock in the day succeeded his father in the charge of his father's stall, whence some goods of the latter were stolen by the prisoner :—Held, that in a count for larceny, the ownership of the goods could not be laid in the boy; for he was not a bailee, but a servant. (b)

One C. was owner of an ox, and verbally gave it to his son, in whose name it was laid as being the owner in the indictment. There was no removal at the time of the gift, nor delivery; nor change of possession, nor writing; but the ox was in the son's possession at the time of the theft. On a case submitted for the opinion of this Court: Held-that, to make a valid gift of personal property inter vivos, it is not necessary that there should be an actual delivery, and change of possession. It is sufficient to complete such a gift, that the conduct of the parties should shew that the ownership of the chattel has been changed, or that there has been an acceptance by the donee, and that therefore the property was well laid in the indictment. (c)

The prisoner was indicted for stealing the cattle of R. M. At the trial R. M. gave evidence that he was nineteen

(a) Reg. v. Barnes, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 45; 35 L. J. (M. C.) 204.

(b) Reg. v. Green, 3 U. U. C. L. J. 19; Dears & B. 113; 26 L. J. (M. C.) 17. (c) Reg. v. Carter, 13 U. C. C. P. 611.