years of age; that his father was dead; that the goods were bought with the proceeds of his father's estate; that his mother was administratrix, and that the witness managed the property, and bought the cattle in question. On objection that the property in the cattle was wrongly laid, the indictment was amended by stating the goods to be the property of the mother. The case proceeded and no further evidence of the administrative character of the mother was given; the County Court Judge holding the evidence of R. M. sufficient, and not leaving any question, as to the property, to the jury. On a case reserved :— Held that there was ample evidence of possession in R. M., to support the indictment, without amendment. (a) The conviction on the amended indictment was not sustainable, as the Judge had apparently treated the case, as established by the fact of the cattle being the mother's property in her representative character, of which there was no evidence, nor was any question of ownership by her, apart from her representative character, left to the jury. (b) Formerly where goods stolen were the property of partners or joint owners, all the partners or joint owners must have been correctly named in the indictment, otherwise the defendants would have been acquitted. (c) But now the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 29 s. 17, provides that it shall be sufficient to name one of such persons, and to state the property to belong to the person so named, and another or others as the case may be. The provisions of this statute must be strictly complied with. (d) Where an indictment under 23 Vic., c. 37 s. 1, charged defendant with, procuring certain persons to cut trees, the (a) Reg. v. Jackson, 19 U. C. C. P. 280. (b) Ib (c) Reg. v. Quinn, 29 U. C. Q. B. 163, per Richards, C. J. property of A. B. & C., growing on certain land belonging to them, and the evidence shewed that the land belonged to them and another or others, as tenants in common-Held, that the conviction could not be supported. (a) An indictment for breaking into a church, and stealing vestments there, and describing the goods stolen as the property of" the parishoners of the said church," was held insufficient, and that they must be laid as the property of some person or persons individually. (b) But having regard to the grounds of the decision in this case, and the language of the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 29 s. 19, the writer apprehends that an indictment, in the above form, would now be sufficient. S. and C., carmen of the Great Northern Railway Company left the station, in Middlesex, to proceed to Woo!wich, in Kent, with one of the company's waggons, and, before starting, the usual oats, etc. for provender for the horses were given out to them and placed in the waggon in nosebags; at Woolwich, they took the nosebags from the waggon and delivered them to B. an ostler for 6d. Upon an indictment at the Middlesex Sessions against S. and C. for stealing the oats, etc. and of B. for receiving, they were found guilty :-Held, that the case was within 7 Geo. 4 c. 61 s. 13; (c) and that though the offences were committed in Kent, the prisoners might be tried in Middlesex. (d) The prisoner stole a watch at Liverpool, and sent it by rail to a confederate in London :-Held, that the constructive possession, which is equivalent to the actual possession, still remained in the prisoner and that, under the 24 & 25 Vic. c. 96 s. 114, (by which the prisoner may be (a) Reg. v. Quinn, 29 U. C. Q. B. 158. (b) Reg. v. O'Brien, 13 U. C. Q. B. 436. (c) See 32 & 33 Vic. c. 29, s. 9. (d) Reg. v. Sharp, 1 U. C. L. J. 17; Dears. C. C. 415. indicted, where he has the property in his possession, though stolen in another part of the United Kingdom) he was triable at the Middlesex Sessions. (a) On an indictment charging a larceny of goods in New Brunswick, it appeared that the goods were taken in the State of Maine, and brought into New-Brunswick:-Held, that, in the absence of proof that the taking was larceny, according to the law of Maine, the prisoner could not be convicted of larceny in New-Brunswick, under the Rev. Stats. c. 158 s. 8. (b) Larceny committed on board a ship at sea, on a voyage from Ireland to St. John, New-Brunswick, does not come within the Rev. Stats. c. 158 s. 10, but may be tried under the 18 & 19 Vic., c. 91. (c) When a count for larceny charges the stealing of a great number of things, a general verdict of guilty will be supported by evidence that any one of the things mentioned has been stolen, notwithstanding there is no evidence as to the rest. () Where upon an indictment against a defendant, as servant, for stealing, there was no count for embezzlement, but there was evidence of embezzlement but not of stealing, and the jury found a general verdict of guilty, the conviction was quashed. (e) The value of the property is now immaterial, (ƒ) and, where the value is not of the essence of the offence, no statement of value or price is necessary in the indictment. (g) If a larceny be committed by a lodger, the goods may be described as the property of the owner or person letting to hire. (h) (a) Reg. v. Rogers, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 136; 37 L. J. (M. C.) 83. (b) Reg. v. Hill, M. T. 1863. (c) Reg. v Dillon. H. T. 1864, Supreme Court, New Brunswick. (d) Reg. v. Johnson, 4 U. C. L. J. 49; 1 Dears. & B. C. C. 340. (e) Reg. v. Gorbutt, 3 U. C. L. J. 60; Dears. & B. 166; 26 L. J. (M. C.) 47. (f) 32 & 33 Vic. c. 21, s. 2. (g) 32 & 33 Vic. c. 29, s. 23. (h) 32 & 33 Vic. c. 21, s. 75. See Reg. v. Healey, 1 Mood. C. C. 1. Stealing from the person.-To constitute a stealing from the person, the thing stolen must be completely removed from the person. (a) In order to bring a case within the 32 & 33 Vic., c. 21, s. 44, the demand, if successful, must amount to stealing, and to constitute a menace, within that section, it must be of such a nature as to unsettle the mind of the person upon whom it operates, and to take away from his acts that element of voluntary action which alone constitutes consent; it must, therefore, be left to the jury to say whether the conduct of the prisoner is such as to have had that effect upon the prosecutor. (b) Where a policeman professing to act under legal authority, threatens to imprison a person, on a charge not amounting to an offence in law, unless money be given him, and the person, believing him, gives the money, the policeman may be indicted under that section, although he might also have been indicted for stealing the money. (c) To constitute an attempt to steal, some act must be done towards the complete offence. Feeling a coat-tail to ascertain if there is anything in the pocket, is not an attempt to do the act of picking the pocket, for it may be that nothing was found to be in it, and therefore the prisoner does not proceed to the commission of the act itself, and, if there is nothing in the pocket, even putting the hand into it has been held not to be an attempt to steal. (d) The prosecutor carried his watch in his waistcoat pocket, the chain attached passing through a buttonhole of the waistcoat, and being there kept from slipping (a) 2 Russ. Cr. 359. (b) Reg. v. Walton, L. & C. 288; 32 L. J. (M. C.) 79. through by a watch key. The prisoner took the watch out of the pocket, and drew the chain out of the buttonhole, but, his hand being seized, it appeared that, although the chain and key were drawn out of the buttonhole, the point of the key had caught up another button, and was thereby suspended :-Held, that the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction for stealing from the person. (a) Demanding, with menaces, money actually due is not a demanding with intent to steal, under the Con. Stats. Can., c. 94, s. 4. (b) Upon the trial of an indictment for stealing fowls, the property of O., he was unable to say that any of his fowls were missing; but it was proved that the prisoner was met by a police constable at about 1 o'clock in the morning, going towards his own house, and within twelve hundred yards from O.'s premises, when he threw down dead fowls, warm and bleeding, and ran towards his own house. His footsteps were visible in the snow from where he was met to the premises, and the knees of his cord trousers were covered with the wet dung of fowls, and in O.'s fowl-pen, under the roosts, marks of the knees of cord trousers were found, and on the floor fresh feathers as if from a fowl's neck, and on the following morning the doors of the fowl-pen, and of other buildings, which had been closed on the previous night, were found open-Held, that there was evidence to go to the jury, and that a conviction was right. (c) The Court of Queen's Bench had, at common law, no jurisdiction to issue a writ of restitution, except as part of the judgment on an appeal of larceny. The 21 Hy. 8, (a) Reg. v. Simpson, 1 U. C. L. J. 16; Dears. 621; 24 L. .J. (M. C.) 7; see also Reg. v. Thompson, 1 Mood. C. C. 78. (b) Reg. v. Johnson, 14 U. C. Q. B. 569. (c) Reg. v. Mockford, 16 W. R. 375. |