L. & C. 21; 8 Cox, C. C. 468; 7 | Jur., N. S. 473; 9 W. R. 555; 4 L. T., N. S. 309. B., a broker, having large dealings with the prosecutors, Russian merchants, in October entered into a contract for the purchase of 343 casks of tallow which were expected to arrive by the Hesper, in the ordinary course of trade. The tallow arrived accordingly on the 5th of December, and in due course the transaction should have been completed within fourteen days, and notice was given to B. of the arrival of the tallow, and he was called upon to complete the bargain. He requested that the tallow might be allowed to remain in the docks for a short time. This was granted. On January 28th the manager for the prosecutors called on him, and insisted on the completion of the contract, and B. said he would pay for the tallow on the following day. On the next day B. sent his clerk to the prosecutors' counting-house, and obtained delivery orders for the tallow, and tendered to the prosecutors a crossed cheque on a bank of London for the price of the tallow. Immediately on obtaining possession of the delivery orders, he sent them to the docks, and transferred the property into fresh warrants, and when the cheque was presented there were no assets:-Held, not to be a larceny of the delivery orders by a trick, but a lawful possession of them obtained by reason of the prosecutors giving to B. credit in respect of the crossed cheque. Reg. v. North, 8 Cox, C. C. 433-Pollock. paid the 26s. because she was afraid. A. was indicted for, and convicted of, feloniously stealing these 26s. :— Held, that the conviction was right, because, if the force used to B. made the taking a robbery, larceny was included in that crime; if the force was not sufficient to constitute a robbery, the taking of the money nevertheless amounted to larceny, as B. paid the money to A. against her will, and because she was afraid. Reg. v. McGrath, 1 L. R., C. C. 205; 21 L. T., N. S. 543; 18 W. R. 119; 37 L. J., M. C. 7. Held, also, that, under the circumstances, it was not necessary that the jury should be asked whether B. paid the money against her will, as from the evidence it was clear that there could have been no doubt in the minds of the jury that the money was so paid. Ib. (d) On Breach of Contract to sell. A drover of cattle was employed by a grazier in the country to drive eight oxen to London; his instructions were, that, if he could sell them on the road, he might; and those he did not so sell he was to take to a particular salesman in Smithfield market, who was to sell them for the grazier. The drover sold two on the road, and instead of taking the remaining six to the salesman, drove them himself to Smithfield market, and sold them there, and received the money, which he applied to his own use: - Held, that he could not be convicted either of larceny or embezzlement. Reg. v. Goodbody, 8 C. & P. 665-Littledale and Parke. On an indictment against a farmBy a Trick or a Threat.]-A. er for stealing sheep entrusted to acted as auctioneer at a mock auc-him for agistment, and which he tion. He knocked down some cloth for 26s. to B., who had not bid for it, as A. knew. B. refused to take the cloth or to pay for it; A. refused to allow her to leave the room unless she paid. Ultimately she paid the 26s. to A. and took the cloth. She had sold, concealing for upwards of a month the fact of the sale, there being some evidence that he had, or might have supposed that he had, some implied authority to sell, or that the prosecutor would not object to it if he realised a good price, the jury was directed that the question was, whether at the time of the sale the prisoner had any reason to suppose he might sell. Reg. v. Leppard, 4 F. & F. 51Erle. A., carrying on business on his own account, entered into an engagement with B. to sell goods for him, and for certain purposes to be his servant. B. entrusted A. with certain goods to dispose of in a particular way. A. converted them to his own use:-Held, that it was a question for the jury to say whether, when A. received the goods, he had the intention of misappropriating them. Reg. v. Waller, 10 Cox, C. C. 360-Russell Gurney, Recorder. (e) By Hirers of Property. Obtaining a post-chaise by hiring, with a felonious intent to convert it to the use of the hirer, is felony, although the contract for hiring was not for any definite time. Rex v. Semple, 1 Leach, C. C. 420 ; 2 East, P. C. 691. If a man who is hired to drive cattle sells them, it is larceny; for he has the custody only, and not the right to the possession; his possession is the owner's possession, though he is a general drover, at least if he is paid by the day. Rex v. M'Namee, 1 M. C. C. 368. See Reg. v. Hey, 3 Cox, C. C. 582. A person hired to drive cattle to a particular place, who sells the same and absconds with the money, is guilty of stealing, though the intention to sell is not conceived till after taking possession of the cattle. Reg. v. Jackson, 2 M. C. C. 32. If goods are delivered to a person on hire, and he takes them away, animo furandi, he is guilty of larceny, although no actual conversion of them by sale or otherwise is proved. Reg. v. Janson, 4 Cox, C. C. 82-Coleridge. A. hired a horse and gig with the felonious intention of converting them to his own use, and afterwards offered them for sale, but no sale took place: - Held, nevertheless, that he was guilty of larceny. Ib. mere To constitute a larceny by a party to whom goods have been delivered on hire, there must not only be an original intention to convert them to his own use, but a subsequent actual conversion; and a agreement by the hirer to accept a sum offered for the goods is not such a conversion, if the party who makes the offer does not intend to purchase unless his suspicions, as to the honesty and right of the vendor to sell, are removed. Reg. v. Brooks, 8 C. & P. 295-Tindal. A., the owner of a boat, was employed by B., the captain of a ship, to carry a number of wooden staves ashore in his boat; B.'s men were put into the boat, but were under the control of A., who did not deliver all the staves, but took one of them away to the house of his mother:-Held, that this was a bailment of the staves to A., and not a charge only; and that a mere non-delivery of the staves would not have been a larceny in A.; but that if A. separated one of the staves from the rest, and carried it to a place different from that of its destination, with intent to appropriate it to his own use, that was equivalent to a breaking of bulk, and therefore would be sufficient to constitute a larceny. Rex v. Howell, 7 C. & P. 325-Patteson. A. hiring a horse and riding it away from a livery-stable, and af terwards selling it, cannot be convicted of larceny unless he had the intention of stealing the horse when he originally hired it, and that is a question for the jury. Reg. v. Cole, 2 Cox, C. C. 340-Patteson and Coleridge. (f) From Bailees at Common Law. If a man steals his own goods from his own bailee, though he has no intent to charge the bailee, but his intent is to defraud the king, yet if the bailee had an interest in the possession, and could have withheld it from the owner, the taking is a larceny. Rex v. Wilkinson, R. & R. C. C. 470. If a part-owner of property steals it from A., in whose sole custody it is, and who is solely responsible for its safety, he is guilty of larceny, and the property is well laid in A. alone, although he is also a partowner of the property stolen. Reg. v. Webster, L. & C. 77; 9 Cox, C. C. 13; S. P., Rex v. Bramley, R. & R. C. C. 478. The prosecutor's horse had been impounded. The prisoner pretended that he had been sent by the prosecutor, paid the pound-keeper's demand, received the horse, and made off with it. He was indicted for larceny. The indictment had two counts, one laying the property in the prosecutor and the other in the pound-keeper :-Held, that the pound-keeper was a servant of the owner, and, therefore, that the of fence was larceny. Reg. v. Simpson, 2 Cox, C. C. 235—Williams. (g) By Bailees at Common Law. If the master or owner of a ship steals some of the goods delivered to him to carry, it is not larceny in him unless he takes the goods out of their packages. Rex v. Madox, R. & R. C. C. 92. If one employed to carry goods for hire appropriates them to his own use, but does not break bulk, this is no larceny, although the person so employed was not a common carrier, but was only employed in this particular instance. Rex v: Fletcher, 4 C. & P. 557-Patteson. But if a person not being a servant of the party who intrusts him, receives a parcel containing notes to take to a coach-office, and abstracts the notes on his way there, and applies them to his own use, he is guilty of larceny. Reg. v. Jenkins, 9 C. & P. 38-Bosanquet and Gurney. A. consigned three trusses of hay to B., and sent them by the prisoner's cart; the prisoner took away one of the trusses, which was found in his stable, but not broken up :Held, no larceny, as the prisoner did not break up the truss. Rex v. Pratley, 5 C. & P. 533-Parke. If a parcel is accidentally left in a hackney-coach, and the coachman, instead of restoring it to the owner, detains it, opens it, destroys part of its contents, and borrows money on the rest, he is guilty of felony. Rex v. Wynne, 1 Leach, C. C. 413; 2 East, P. C. 664, 697; S. P., Rex v. Sears, 1 Leach, C. C. 415, n. A. was convicted of larceny under the following circumstances: he was a common carrier, and employed by the prosecutor to carry a cargo of coals from a ship to a coal-yard belonging to the prosecutor. He carted the coals to the first-mentioned coal-yard, and was engaged for several days in carting them thence to the prosecutor's other yard. He left the first-mentioned coal-yard on one of those days with two carts and a waggon, all laden with coals; before he arrived at the other yard, he delivered the two cart loads to a third person on his own account, but he duly delivered the waggon-load at the prosecutor's yard:-Held, that the conviction was wrong, the coals having been delivered to A. as a carrier, and there having been no breaking of bulk or other determination of the bailment. Reg. v. Cornish, Dears. C. C. 425; 6 Cox, C. C. 432. If the owner parts with the possession of goods for a special purpose, and the bailee, when that purpose is executed, neglects to return them, and afterwards disposes of them; if he had not a felonious intention when he originally took them, his subsequent withholding and disposing of them will not constitute a new felonious taking, or make him guilty of felony. Rex v. Banks, R. &. R. C. C. 441. If a warehouseman has several bags of wheat delivered to him for safe custody, and he takes the whole of the wheat out of one bag, it is no less a larceny than if he had severed a part from the residue of the wheat in the same bag, and had taken only that part, leaving the remainder of the wheat in the bag. Rex v. Brazier, R. &.R. C. C. 337. property, intending to redeem and then restore it, is a defence not to be generally encouraged, though, if clearly made out in proof, it may be allowed to prevail. The rule for the jury's guidance in such a case seems to be, that, if it clearly appears that the prisoner only intended to raise money upon the property for a temporary purpose, and at the time of pledging the article had a reasonable and a fair expectation of being enabled shortly, by the receipt of money, to take it out and restore it, he might be acquitted; but otherwise, not. Reg. v. Phetheon, 9 C. & P. 553—Gurney. Prisoner was indicted for stealing a pair of boots, the property of A., and acquitted. She was then indicted again for stealing the same boots, laid as the property of B., and pleaded autrefois acquit. A. was a boy fourteen years of age, living with and assisting B., who was his father; the boots were the property of B., but at the time they were stolen by the prisoner, A. had temporarily, in his father's absence, the charge of the stall from which they were stolen-Held, first, that A. was not a bailee, and that the owned it :-Held, that the fact that ership of the boots could not be properly laid in him. Reg. v. Green, Dears. & B. C. C. 113; 2 Jur., N. S. 1146; 26 L. J., M. C. 17; 7 Cox, C. C. 187. Held, secondly, that the plea of autrefois acquit could not be sustained, notwithstanding the power of amendment given by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100. Ib. S., bailee of P.'s mare, took her to certain livery-stables, and paid P. a balance due to him, after deducting money due for the keep of the mare, and told P. that she was at the livery-stables. P. sent word to the stable-keeper not to let S. have the mare again, and twice refused S. permission to ride the mare. S., after P. had left town, obtained the mare from the ostler at the livery-stables by a false statement, and never returned her :-Held, that S. was rightly convicted of larceny. Reg. v. Stear, 2 C. & K. 988; i Den. C. C. 349; T. & M. 11; 13 Jur. 41; 18 L. J., M. C. 30. (h) By Pawning Property. The defence to a charge of stealing, that the prisoner pledged the On a charge of larceny it was proved that the prisoner had taken property from ready-furnished lodgings that were let to her, and pawn she had frequently pawned and aftwards redeemed portions of the same property, was no answer to the charge. There must not only be the intent, but also the ability to redeem, to render such defence available. Reg. v. Medland, 5 Cox, C. C. 292. Upon an indictment for larceny, it was proved that a box of plate having been deposited with the prisoner for safe custody, he broke it open, and took out a part of the plate, which he offered to a pawnbroker as a security for 501. His offer was declined, but he afterwards pledged the whole box of plate with another person as security for 2001. When he was called upon to restore the plate to the owner, he had not the means of redeeming it, and was taken into custody. The jury found him guilty, but recommended him to mercy, believing that he intended ultimately to return the property:-Held, that he was rightly convicted of larceny at common law; because the jury had found a verdict of guilty which was well warranted by the evidence; and though they Overtures were made by a per had recommended him to mercy on the ground that he intended ulti-son to the servant of a publican, to mately to restore the property, induce him to join him in robbing that expression was not necessarily his master's till. The servant cominconsistent with the verdict, and municated the matter to the master, ought not to be considered equiva- and, some weeks afterwards, the lent to a finding, that at the time servant, by the direction of his maswhen he took the plate wrongfully ter, opened a communication with he took it for the purpose of merely the person who had made the overmaking a temporary use of it. tures, in consequence of which he Reg. v. Trebilcock, 7 Cox, C. C. came to the master's premises. 408; Dears. & B. C. C. 453; 4 The master having previously Jur., N. S. 123; 27 L. J., M. C. marked some money, it was, by his direction, placed upon the counter by the servant, in order that it might be taken up by the party who had come for that purpose. It was so taken up by him :-Held, larceny in such party. Reg. v. Williams, 1 C. & K. 195. 103. The prisoner was employed by a tailor to sell clothes for him about a particular county; the price of each article was fixed, and the clothes were entrusted to the prisoner on the arrangement that he was to sell them at the price fixed, he receiving 38. in the pound on the amount received for them, and being bound to bring back the remainder of the clothes which were unsold. The prisoner received from the prosecutor a parcel of clothes on these terms, but, instead of selling them, he fraudulently pawned a portion of them for his own benefit, and afterwards fraudulently misappropriated the residue to his own use:-Held, that the original bailment of the goods to the prosecutor was determined by the unlawful act of pawning part of them, and that the subsequent fraudulent misappropriation of the remainder amounted to larceny. Reg. v. Poyser, 2 Den. C. C. 233; T. & M. 559; 15 Jur. 386; 20 L. J., M. C. 191; 5 Cox, C. C. 241. (i) Means of facilitating or detecting Larceny. The assent of a prosecutor to give facility to the commission of a larceny, for the purpose of detecting the offenders, does not do away with the felony, although the property was not taken against his will. Rex v. Egginton, 2 Leach, C. C. 913; 2 East, P. C. 494, 666; 2 B. & P. 508. (j) In case of Lost Property. If a man finds goods that have been actually lost, or are reasonably supposed by him to have been lost, and appropriates them with intent to take the entire dominion over them, really believing, when he takes them, that the owner cannot be found, it is not larceny. Reg. v. Thurborn, 1 Den. C. Č. 387; T. & M. 67; 2 C. & K. 831; 13 Jur. 499; 18 L. J., M. C. 140; S. C. Reg. v. Wood, 3 New Sess. Cas. 581; 3 Cox, C. C. 453. But if he takes them with a like intent, though lost, or reasonably supposed to be lost, but reasonably believing that the owner can be found, it is larceny. Ib. A. picked up the purse of B., which contained money, on a turnpike road, along which B. had previously traveled by coach. A. converted the purse and its contents to his own use:-Held, no larceny; and that A. was liable civilly, but not criminally. Reg. v. Mole, 1 C. & K. 417-Parke. If there had been any mark on the purse by which the owner could have been known, it would have been otherwise. Ib. If a person drops any chattel, |