and another finds it, and takes it away with the intention of appropriating it to his own use, and only restores it because a reward is of fered, he is guilty of larceny. Reg. v. Peters, 1 C. & K. 245-Rolfe. S. P. Reg. v. Reed, Car. & M. 306. The only cases in which a party finding a chattel of another can be justified in appropriating it to his own use, is where the owner cannot be found, or where it may be fairly said that the owner has abandoned it. Ib.

cealed it, and on the return of the owner denied all knowledge of it. The jury found that the prisoner took up the purse knowing it was not her own, and intending at the time to appropriate it to her own use, but that she did not know who the owner was at the time she took it:-Held, that as the purse was not lost property, the prisoner was properly convicted of larceny. Reg. v. West, Dears. C. C. 402; 3 C. L. R. 86; 18 Jur. 1031; 24 L. J., M. C. 4; 6 Cox, C. C. 415.

If a man finds lost property and keeps it, and at the time of finding it has no means of discovering the owner, he is not guilty of larceny, because he afterwards has means of finding him, and nevertheless retains the property to his own use. Reg. v. Dixon, Dears. C. C. 580; 25 L. J., M. C. 39; 7 Cox, C. C. 35.

Where a bank-note is lost, and is found by a person who appropriated it to his own use:-Held, that the jury is not to be directed to consider at what time the prisoner, after taking it into his possession, resolved to appropriate it to his own use, but whether at the time he took possession of it he knew, or had the means of knowing, who the owner was, and took possession of it with Semble, if a man finds property intent to steal it; for if his original which has been lost, and appropripossession of it was an innocent ates it to himself, he is not guilty one, no subsequent change of his of larceny for failing to take steps mind, or resolution to appropriate to discover the owner, unless he saw it to his own use, would amount to the article drop from the owner, or larceny. Reg. v. Preston, 2 Den. unless it has the owner's name upon C. C. 353; T. & M. 641; 16 Jur. it, or some circumstances of the 109; 21 L. J., M. C. 41; 5 Cox, sort occurred which afforded the C. C. 390. finder an immediate means of knowA. found a watch, and subsequent-ing who the owner was at the moly converted it to his own use; the ment when he picked it up and exjury found him "not guilty of steal- amined it. Ib. ing the watch, but guilty of keeping possession of it in the hope of reward, from the time he first had the watch." A verdict of guilty was entered at the trial:-Held, wrong, and that on these facts and this finding it was no larceny. Reg. v. York, 2 C. & K. 841; 1 Den. C. C. 335; T. & M. 20; 12 Jur. 1078; 18 L. J., M. C. 38; 3 Cox, C. C.

181.

A finder of lost property is not guilty of larceny in appropriating it to his own use, unless he has a felonious intent at the time of the finding. Reg. v. Christopher, Bell, C. C. 27; 5 Jur., N. S. 24; 28 L. J., M. C. 35; 7 W. R. 60; 32 L. T. 150; 8 Cox, C. C. 91.

A. was indicted for stealing a bank-note. The prosecutor had paid for an article purchased at A.'s A purse, containing money, was shop, out of a purse in which were left by a purchaser on the prisoner's two bank-notes. Next morning he stall. A third person afterwards discovered the loss of one of the pointed out the purse to the prisoner, notes, and applied to A., who told supposing it to be hers. She put it him he knew nothing of the note. in her pocket and afterwards con- | He, however, afterwards stated he

had given gold for it on the day A. was indicted for stealing iron of the loss. The jury, in answer to which he had taken from a canal questions put to them, found-first, while the canal was being cleaned. that the note was dropped by the Property found on such occasions in prosecutor in the shop, and that A. the canal, if identified, was returned found it there; secondly, that he at by the company to the owner; otherthe time he picked up the note did wise it was kept by the company. A. not know, nor had he reasonable was not in the employ of the compameans of knowing, who the owner ny:-Held, that the property in the was; thirdly, that he afterwards ac-iron was rightly laid in the compaquired knowledge of who the owner ny. Reg. v. Rowe, Bell, C. C. 93 ; was, and after that he converted the 5 Jur., N. S. 274; 28 L. J., M. C. note to his own use; fourthly, 28; 7 W. R. 236; 32 L. T. 339. that he intended, when he picked up the note in the shop, to take it to his own use, and deprive the owner of it, whoever that owner might be; and, fifthly, that he believed, at the time he picked up the note, that the owner could be found. A verdict of guilty was thereupon entered-Held, that he was properly convicted. Reg. v. Moore, L. & C. 1; 8 Cox, C. C. 416; 7 Jur., N. S. 172; 30 L. J., M. C. 77; 9 W. R.

276.

A prosecutor found a cheque, and, being unable to read, shewed it to the prisoner. The prisoner told him that it was only an old cheque of the Royal British Bank, and kept it. He afterwards made excuses for not giving it up to the prosecutor, witholding it from him in the hopes of getting the reward that might be offered for it :-Held, that these facts did not shew such a taking as was necessary to constitute larceny. Reg. v. Gardner, L. & C. 243; 9 Cox, C. C. 253; 8 Jur., N. S. 1217; 32 L. J., M. C. 35; 11 W. R. 96; 7 L. T., N. S.

471.

The law with regard to the finder of lost property does not apply to the case of property of a passenger accidentally left in a railway carriage, and found there by a servant of the company; and such servant is guilty of larceny if, instead of taking it to the station or superior officer, he appropriates it to his own use. Reg. v. Pierce, 6 Cox, C. C.

117.

FISH. DIG.-19.

The finder of a lost sovereign in the high road, who, at the time of the finding, had no reasonable means of knowing who the owner was, but who at that time intended to appropriate it even if the owner should afterwards become known, and to whom the next day the owner was made known, when he refused to give it up, is not guilty of larceny. Reg. v. Glyde, 37 L. J., M. C. 107; 1 L. R., C. C. 139; 16 W. R. 1174; 18 L. T., N. S. 613; 11 Cox, C. C. 103.

The prisoner's child found six sovereigns in the street, which she brought to the prisoner. The latter counted it, and told some bystanders that the child had found a sovereign, and offered to treat them. The prisoner and the child then went down the street to the place where the child had found the money, and found a half-sovereign and a bag. Two hours afterwards the owner made hue-and-cry in the vicinity. On the same evening the prisoner was told that a woman had lost money; the prisoner told her informant to mind her own business, and gave her half-a-sovereign for herself. The prisoner admitted, on arrest, that she had got the money from the child :-Held, that these facts did not warrant a conviction for larceny, as there was nothing to shew that at the time of the finding the prisoner had reason to think that the owner could be found. Reg. v. Deaves, 11 Cox, C. C. 227 ; 3 Ir. R., C. L. 306.

The prisoner was found coming out of a warehouse, where a large quantity of pepper was kept, with pepper of a similar quality in his possession. He had no right to be in the warehouse, and on being dis--Pollock. covered said, "I hope you will not Recent possession of stolen propbe hard with me," and took some erty is evidence, either that the perpepper out of his pocket and threw son in possession stole the property, it upon the ground. There was no or that he received it knowing it to evidence of any pepper having been have been stolen, according to the missed from the bulk:-Held, that other circumstances of the case. there was sufficient evidence to go to Reg. v. Langmead, L. & C. 427; 9 the jury of the corpus delicti. Reg. Cox, C. C. 464; 10 L. T., N. S. 350.

Where property of insignificant "horses or other animals, shall not value is traced to the possession of "by reason thereof be deemed guilty the prisoner fifteen months after the" of felony, but shall be liable to imloss, and he gives an account of his "prisonment, or to pay a pecuniary possession of it which is not inconsist-" penalty." ent with the right of the prosecutor to it, he ought not to be called on to account for that possession in a court of justice. Where, however, the prisoner, when lost property is found in his possession, and identified by the prosecutor after so long an interval, claims it as his own property by right of purchase made before the alleged theft, and a continuous possession up to the time of discovery, he may be called on to account for that possession, notwithstanding the interval which has elapsed between the loss and discovery, for then he disputes the identity of the thing found with that loss. Reg. v. Evans, 2 Cox, C. C 270— Alderson.

A man was found with dead fowls in his possession, of which he could give no account, and was tracked to a fowl-house where a number of fowls was kept, and on the floor of which were some feathers corresponding to the feathers of one of the fowls found on the prisoner, from the neck of which feathers had been removed. The fowl-house, which was closed over night, was found open in the morning. The spot where he was found was 1,200 yards from the fowl-house, and the prosecutor, not knowing the number of fowls kept, could not swear that he had lost any:-Held, that there was evidence to support a conviction for larceny. Reg. v. Mockford, 17 L. T., N. S. 582; 16 W. R. 375; 11 Cox, C. C. 16. See 32 & 33 Vict. c. 99,

s. 11.

(1) Servants taking Masters' Corn

for feeding Horses.

By 26 & 27 Vict. c. 103, s. 1, "servants taking their masters' corn, "pulse, roots, or other food contrary "to their orders, for the purpose of "giving the same to their masters'

Before this Enactment.]-Servants who clandestinely took their masters' oats, with intent to give them to their masters' horses, and without any intent to apply them to their own private benefit, were guilty of larceny, even though they were not answerable at all for the condition of the horses. Reg. v. Privett, 2 C. & K. 114; 1 Den. C. C. 193; S. P., Reg. v. Handley, Car. & M. 547; Reg. v. Morfit, R. & R. C. C. 307.

(m) By Husband and Wife. Where, on the trial of a man and a woman for larceny, it appears that they addressed each other as husband and wife, and passed and appeared as such, and were so spoken of by the witnesses for the prosecution, it will be for the jury to say whether they are satisfied that they are in fact husband and wife, even though the woman pleaded to the indictment, which described her as a single woman. Reg. v. Woodward, 8 C. & P. 561-Patteson.

In such a case, a female ought not to be indicted as a single woman. Ib.

Stealing, by the wife of a member of a friendly society, money of the society deposited in a box in the husband's custody, kept locked by the stewards, is not larceny. Rex v. Willis, 1 M. C. C. 375.

A woman and her husband and P. were indicted jointly for burglary and receiving. The jury found P. guilty of housebreaking, and the woman and her husband of receiving. Part of the stolen property was found in the house where she and her husband lived together; and she, in the absence of her husband, some time after the housebreaking, was seen dealing with part of the stolen things, when she made a state

ment importing a knowledge that | wife; and if the wife delivers the

they had been stolen. The judge declined to leave it to the jury to find whether she received the stolen property from her husband or in his absence:-Held, that the conviction could not be supported. Reg. v. Wardroper, Bell, C. C. 249; 8 Cox, C. C. 284; 6 Jur., N. S. 232; 29 L. J., M. C. 116; 8 W. R. 217; 1 L. T., N. S. 416.

goods of the husband to an indifferent person, for that person to convert them to his own use, this is no larceny; but if the person to whom the goods are delivered by the wife is an adulterer, it is otherwise, and an adulterer can be properly convicted of stealing the husband's goods, though they are delivered to him by the wife. Reg. v. Tollett, Car. & M. 112-Coleridge.

If no adultery has actually been committed by the parties, but the goods of the husband are removed from the house by the wife and the intended adulterer, with an intent that the wife should elope with him, and live in adultery with him, this taking of the goods is, in point of

Husband and wife were jointly indicted for stealing. The husband was in the employ of the prosecutors, and was seen near the spot when the property stolen arrived at the prosecutors'. The next day the wife was seen near the spot where her husband was engaged on his work. She was at a spot where there was no road, with a bundle concealed, and was follow-law, larceny. Ib. ed home. On the following day she pledged the stolen property at two different places. At one of the places where she was not known she pledged in a false name :-Held, that upon this evidence the wife might be convicted of stealing the property. Reg. v. Cohen, 18 L. T., N. S. 489; 16 W. R. 941; 11 Cox, C. C. 99-jointly take away the husband's C. C. R. goods, it may be larceny in the man, though he was acting jointly with the wife. Rex v. Tolfree, 1 M. C. C. 243.

If a wife elopes with an adulterer who takes her clothes with them, the taking is a larceny; and it is as much a larceny to steal her clothes, which are her husband's property, as it would be to steal anything else that is his property. 1b.

If a man and the owner's wife

The prisoner's wife hired a bedstead at 1s. per week, and within a fortnight afterwards the prisoner sold it to a broker, his wife being present at the sale. Two days after the sale the wife paid 1s. for a week's hire, being all that was paid. There was no evidence that the prisoner knew that the bedstead had only been hired:-Held, that a conviction for larceny could not be sustained. Reg. v. Halford, 18 L. T., N. S. 334; 16 W. R. 731; 11 Cox, C. C. 88-ed of stealing the goods of the C. C. R.

(n) By Wife's Paramour. There is such a unity of interest between husband and wife, that ordinarily the wife cannot steal the goods of the husband, nor can an indifferent person steal the goods of the husband by the delivery of the

A prisoner cannot be found guilty of stealing goods, if it appears that he could not otherwise get them than by the delivery of the prosecutor's wife, in which case it may be presumed that he received them from her. Rex v. Harrison, 1 Leach, C. C. 47; 2 East, P. C. 559.

An adulterer cannot be convict

husband brought by the wife alone to his lodgings, and placed by her in the room in which the adultery was afterwards committed, merely upon evidence of their being found there; but it would be otherwise if the goods could be traced in any way to his personal possession. Reg. v. Rosenberg, 1 C. & K. 233 -Denman and Parke.