&c. The larceny or other felonious taking must be proved. The larceny, For this and every other purpose the principal felon is a competent witness; but of course the jury will form their own opinion as to the weight of his testimony; and if the thief is the only witness, the judge will advise an acquittal (ƒ). Next, it must be proved that the goods were received The receiving. by the prisoner into his actual possession; though a manual possession is not necessary (g). The goods being found in his possession is good presumptive evidence of his having received them. knowledge. The knowledge of the prisoner at the time he received The guilty the goods that they were stolen, is proved either directly, by the evidence of the principal felon, or circumstantially, as by shewing that the prisoner bought them much under their value, denied that he had them in his possession, &c. Evidence may also be given that there was found in his possession other property stolen within the preceding twelve months. And again, if evidence has been given that the stolen property has been found in his possession, at any stage of the proceedings evidence may be given of a conviction within the five years immediately preceding of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty. But in this last case seven days' notice in writing must be given to the accused that proof is intended to be given of such previous conviction (). The allowing evidence of a previous conviction to be Evidence of given during the course of a trial, so that it may previous affect conviction. the minds of the jury, is an exception to the usual policy and practice of our criminal law. As a rule, the only influence which a previous conviction is allowed. (f) R. v. Robinson, 4 F. & F. 43. (g) R. v. Smith, 24 L. J. (M.C.) 135. Punishment to exert is, after the verdict has been given, on the judge in determining the sentence. The punishment for the felonious receiving is penal for the felony, servitude to the extent of fourteen years (i). But receiving a post-letter, a post letter-bag, or any chattel, or money, or valuable security, the stealing, or taking or embezzling, or secreting whereof amounts to a felony under the Post Office Acts, knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen, &c., and to have been sent or to have been intended to be sent by post, is punishable by penal servitude to the extent of life, or imprisonment not exceeding four years (k). for the misdemeanor, for the offence punishable on summary conviction. Count for receiving in stealing and vice versa. Where the principal offence is a misdemeanor by the Larceny Act, e.g., if the property has been obtained by false pretences, the receiver, knowing that the property has been unlawfully stolen, taken, obtained, converted or disposed of, is also guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by penal servitude to the extent of seven years (1). Where the principal offence is punishable on summary conviction, the receiver is liable, on summary conviction, to the same punishment to which the principal is liable for stealing or taking such property on the same conviction (i.e., the first, second, or subsequent) (m). Contrary to the general rule, which does not admit indictment for of different felonies being charged in different counts of the indictment (n), in an indictment for stealing any. property it is lawful to add a count or counts for feloniously receiving the same or any part or parts thereof. And conversely, in an indictment for receiving it is lawful to add a count for feloniously stealing the same. It is for the jury to say of which offence they find the prisoner guilty; or if there are more prisoners than one, it is for the jury to say which are guilty of each offence (o). receivers. Any number of receivers, though they received at dif- Trial of several ferent times, of the property which has been stolen or otherwise disposed of in such manner as to amount to a felony at common law or by the Larceny Act, may be charged with substantive felonies (ie., of receiving) in the same indictment, and tried together (p). And, in any case, upon the trial of two or more indicted for jointly receiving, the jury may convict one or more of separately receiving (q). who harbour &c. With a view to the prevention of crimes of this and Penalties on those keeping similar descriptions, it has been provided that any one public places who keeps a lodging, public, beer, or other house or thieves, admit place where intoxicating liquors are sold, or any place stolen goods, of public entertainment or public resort, or a brothel, and knowingly lodges or harbours thieves or reputed thieves, or allows the deposit of goods therein, having reasonable cause for believing them to be stolen, is liable to a penalty not exceeding 10, or, in default of payment, imprisonment not exceeding four months; or instead, or in addition to such punishment, the court may require him to enter into recognizances for keeping the peace or being of good behaviour. There are also provisions for the forfeiture of licences on such. conduct (). Power is given under certain circumstances to search for stolen property, even without a search warrant (s). If a pawnbroker is convicted of receiving stolen Pawnbroker (0) s. 92. (p) s. 93. (q) s. 94. (r) 34 & 35 Vict. c. 112, ss. 10, II. (s) Ibid. s. 16. receiving. Recent possession. goods knowing them to be stolen (or of any fraud in his business), the court may direct that his licence shall cease to have effect (t). We frequently hear of the so-called doctrine of Recent Possession, that is, of the possession of property within a short time after it has been stolen. Why a matter of mere common sense should be elevated to the style of a "doctrine," it is not easy to see. What is meant is only that, according to the circumstances of the case, the recent possession is evidence that the person in possession stole the property, or received it knowing it to have been stolen. This evidence may be of the strongest, or of hardly any weight at all. It will vary not only according to the length of time, but also according to other considerations, one of the chief of which is the nature of the property, whether it be of a description which can easily pass from one person to another. Thus the possession of a diamond ring a year after the theft would be more indicative of a felonious intent than the possession of a pound of cheese after the lapse of a week (u). (t) 35 & 36 Vict. c. 93, s. 38. (u, R. v. Partridge, 7 C. & P. 551 ; R. v. Langmead, L. & C. 427 ; R. v. Deer, 32 L. J. (M.C.) 33. CHAPTER II. EMBEZZLEMENT. defined and EMBEZZLEMENT may be defined as the unlawful appro- Embezzlement priation to his own use by a servant or clerk of money distinguished or chattels received by him for and on account of his from larceny. master or employer. It differs from larceny by clerks or servants in this respect: embezzlement is committed in respect of property which is not at the time in the actual or legal possession of the owner, whilst in larceny it is. An example will illustrate the distinction. A clerk receives £20 from a person in payment for some goods sold by his master; he at once puts it into his pocket, appropriating it to his own use; this is embezzlement. The clerk appropriates to his own use £20 which he takes from the till; this is larceny. The line of demarcation between the two offences appears sometimes to be very finely drawn (x). This would be liable to work injustice, were it not for a provision to which we shall shortly have to refer (y). The principal points to be noticed are the following: (i.) Proof that the prisoner was employed as clerk or servant. (ii.) Proof of his receipt for, or in the name of, or on account of, the employer or master. (iii.) Proof of the unlawful appropriation. (x) It is urged that there is no ground for preserving the distinction. This would especially be the case if the principle of possession of the servant being the possession of the master had been interpreted with the same latitude in criminal and civil cases.-Rosc. 463. (y) v. p. 236. |