simple larceny. If a statute makes a larceny to steal a thing of which there could be no larceny at the common law,then it becomes, by construction of law, a robbery, to take this thing forcibly and feloniously from the person of one put in fear.. Bishop, 2 Cr. Law, 1158,1159, 1160. An actual taking either by force or upon delivery must be proved, that is, it must appear that the robber actually got possession of the goods. Therefore if a robber cut a man's girdle in order to get his purse, and the purse thereby fall to the ground, and the robber run off or be apprehended before he can take it up, this would not be robbery, because the purse was never in the possession of the robber.-1 Hale, P. C. 553.

But it is immaterial whether the taking were by force or upon delivery, and if by delivery, it is also immaterial whether the robber have compelled the prosecutor to it by a direct demand in the ordinary way, or upon any colourable pretence.-Archbold, 417.

A carrying away must also be proved as in other cases of larceny. And therefore where the defendant, upon meeting a man carrying a bed, told him to lay it down or he would shoot him, and the man accordingly laid down the bed, but the robber, before he could take it up so as to remove it from the place where it lay, was apprehended, the judges held that the robbery was not complete.-R. vs. Farrell, 1 Leach, 362; 2 East P. C.

557.

But a momentary possession though lost again in the same instant, is sufficient. James Lapier was convicted of robbing a lady and taking from her person a diamond earring. The fact was that as the lady was coming out of the opera house she felt the prisoner snatch at her earring and tear it.from her ear, which bled, and she was much hurt, but the earring fell into her hair, where it

was found after she returned home. The judges were all of opinion that the earring being in the possession of the prisoner for a moment, separate from the lady's person, was sufficient to constitute robbery, although he could not retain it, but probably lost it again the same instant. -2 East P. C. 557.

If the thief once takes possession of the thing, the offence is complete, though he afterwards return it: as if a robber finding little in a purse which he had taken from the owner, restored it to him again, or let it fall in struggling, and never take it up again, having once had possession of it.-2 East, loc. cit.; 1 Hale, 533; R. vs. Peat, 1 Leach, 228; Archbold 417.

The taking must have been feloniously done, that is to say animo furandi, as in larceny, and against the will of the party robbed, that is, that they were either taken from him by force and violence, or delivered up by him to the defendant, under the impression of that degree of fear and apprehension which is necessary to constitute robbery.-Archbold, 417.

Where on an indictment for robbery, it appeared that the prosecutor owed the prisoner money, and had promised to pay him five pounds, and the prisoner violently assaulted the prosecutor, and so forced him then and there to pay him his debt, Erle, C. J., said that it was no robbery, there being no felonious intent.-Reg. vs. Hemmings, 4 F. & F. 50.

2. Violence. The prosecutor must either prove that he was actually in bodily fear from the defendant's actions, at the time of the robbery, or he must prove circumstances from which the court and jury may presume such a degree of apprehension of danger as would induce the prosecutor to part with his property; and in this latter case, if the circumstances thus proved be such as

are calculated to create such a fear, the court will not pursue the inquiry further, and examine whether the fear actually existed. Therefore if a man knock another down, and steal from him his property whilst he is insensible on the ground, that is robbery. Or suppose a man makes a manful resistance, but is overpowered and his property taken from him by the mere dint of superior strength, this is a robbery.-Foster, 128; R. vs. Davies, 2 East P. C. 709.

On Mrs. Jeffries coming out of a ball, at St. James' Palace, where she had been as one of the maids of honor, the prisoner snatched a diamond pin from her headdress with such force as to remove it with part of the hair from the place in which it was fixed, and ran away with it: held, to be a robbery.-R .vs. Moore, 1 Leach, 335. See supra, Lapier's case, 1 Leach, 320.

Where the defendant laid hold of the seals and chain of the prosecutor's watch and pulled the watch out of his fob, but the watch, being secured by a steel chain which went round the prosecutor's neck, the defendant could not take it until, by pulling and two or three jerks, he broke the chain, and then ran off with the watch; this was holden to be robbery.-R. vs. Mason, Rus. & Ry. 419.—But merely snatching property from a person unawares, and running away with it, will not be robbery, R. vs. Steward, 2 East P. C. 702; R. vs. Horner, Id. 703; R. vs. Baker, 1 Leach, 290; R. vs. Robins, do, do; R. vs. Macauly, 1 Leach, 287; Archbold, 414,-because fear cannot in fact be presumed in such a case.-When the prisoner caught hold of the prosecutor's watch-chain, and jerked his watch from his pocket with considerable force, upon which a scuffle ensued, and the prisoner was secured, Garrow, B., held that the force used to obtain the watch did not make the offence amount to robbery,

nor did the force used afterwards in the scuffle; for the force necessary to constitute robbery must be either immediately before or at the time of the larceny, and not after it.-R. vs. Gnosil, 1 C. & P. 304.-The rule, therefore, appears to be well established, that no sudden taking or snatching of property unawares from a person is sufficient to constitute robbery, unless some injury be done to the person, or there be a previous struggle for the possession of the property, or some force used to obtain it.-Archbold, loc cit.; 2 Russell, 104.

If a man take another's child, and threaten to destroy him, unless the other give him money, this is robbery. -R. vs. Reane, 2 East P. C. 735; R. vs. Donnolly, Id. 718. So where the defendant, at the head of a mob, came to the prosecutor's house and demanded money, threatening to destroy the house unless the money were given, the prosecutor therefore gave him five shillings, but he insisted on more, and the prosecutor, being terrified, gave him five shillings more: the defendant and the mob then took bread, cheese and cider from the prosecutor's house, without his permission, and departed, this was holden to be a robbery as well of the money as of the bread, cheese and cider.-R. vs. Simons, 2 East P. C. 731; R. vs. Brown, Id.-So where during some riots at Birmingham, the defendant threatened the prosecutor that unless he would give a certain sum of money, he should return with the mob and destroy his house, and the prosecutor, under the impression of this threat, gave him the money, this was holden by the judges to be robbery.-R. vs. Astly, 2 East P. C. 729.-So where, during the riots of 1780, a mob, headed by the defendant, came to the prosecutor's house, and demanded half a crown, which the prosecutor, from terror of the mob, gave, this was holden to be robbery, although no threats were uttered.

-R. vs. Taplin, 2 East P.C. 712.-Upon an indictment for robbery, it appeared that a mob came to the house of the prosecutor, and with the mob the prisoner who advised the prosecutor to give them something to get rid of them, and prevent mischief, by which means they obtained money from the prosecutor; and Parke, J., after consulting Vaughan and Anderson, J. J., admitted evidence of the acts of the mob at other places before and after on the same day, to show that the advice of the prisoner was not bona fide, but in reality a mere mode of robbing the prosecutor.-R. vs. Winkworth, 4 C. & P. 444; Archbold, 414.-Where the prosecutrix was threatened by some person at a mock auction to be sent to prison, unless she paid for some article they pretended was knocked down to her, although she never bid for it; and they accordingly called in a pretended constable, who told her that unless she gave him a shilling, she must go with him, and she gave him a shilling accordingly, not from any apprehension of personal danger but from a fear of being taken to prison, the judges held that the circumstances of the case were not sufficient to constitute the offence of robbery: it was nothing more than a simple duress, or a conspiracy to defraud.-R. vs. Knewland, 2 Leach, 721; 2 Russell, 118. This case is now provided for by sect. 44, post.In Reg. vs. MacGrath, 11 Cox, 347, a woman went into a mock auction room, where the prisoner professed to act as auctioneer. Some cloth was put up by auction, for which a person in the room bid 25 shillings. A man standing between the woman and the door said to the prisoner that she had bid 26 shillings for it, upon which the prisoner knocked it down to the woman. She said she had not bid for it, and would not pay for it, and turned to go out. The prisoner said she must pay for it, before she would be allowed to go out, and she was pre