A. assisting the wife of B. to take | They were afterwards overtaken on B.'s goods, which are afterwards the road in company together, the used by them in common, without prisoner carrying a bandbox conthe consent of B., is evidence to taining the wife's wearing apparel. warrant a conviction against A. of He was convicted upon an indictlarceny. Reg. v. Thompson, 1 Den. ment for stealing the property so C. C. 549; T. &. M. 294; 14 Jur. found upon him, the property being laid as that of the husband :-Held, that the conviction could not be sustained. Reg. v. Fitch, Dears. & B. C. C. 187; 3 Jur., N. S. 524; 26 L. J., M. C. 169; 7 Cox, C. C. 269. 488. Delivery by the wife of her husband's goods to her adulterer, he having knowledge that she had taken them without her husband's authority, is sufficient to support an indictment for larceny against the adulterer. Reg. v. Featherstone, Dears. C. C. 369; 2 C. L. R. 774; 18 Jur. 538; 23 L. J., M. C. 127; 6 Cox, C. C. 376. If a person merely assists a married woman, who has not committed, or intended to commit, adultery, in carrying away the goods of her husband without the knowledge and consent of the latter, though with intent to deprive the latter of his property, he cannot be convicted of stealing the goods. Reg. v. Avery, Bell, C. C. 150; 5 Jur., N. S. 577; 28 L. J., M. C. 185; 7 W. R. 431; 32 L. T. 138; 8 Cox, C. C. 184.. Where a man assists a wife in carrying off what he knows to be her husband's property, and goes away with her with the intention of committing adultery, he is guilty of larceny; and the facts that he was in the husband's service, and acted under the wife's directions in removing the property, afford no answer to the charge. Reg. v. Mutters, L. &. C. 511: 10 Cox, C. C. 50; 34 L. J., M. C. 54; 13 W. R. 326; 11 L. T., N. S. 642. A wife took her husband's goods from Notting Hill, and she was found committing adultery with the prisoner at Liverpool, the husband's goods being then in the prisoner's possesB. watching his opportunity when sion. There was no evidence that the prosecutor was absent, took they were under his control at any away the prosecutor's wife, and place within the jurisdiction of the with her several boxes filled with Central Criminal Court: - Held, the prosecutor's property. B. and that that court had no jurisdiction the wife were found living together to try the prisoner for the offence. in adultery. The property was all Reg. v. Prince, 11 Cox, C. C. 145 in their lodgings:-Held, that he-Russell Gurney. was indictable for stealing the prop erty of the prosecutor, as he took (0) By Clerks or Servants. the property under such circum- By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 67, stances that the assent of the hus-"whosever, being a clerk or servband to the taking could not be "ant, or being employed for the presumed. Reg. v. Berry, Bell, C." purpose or in the capacity of a C. 95; 5 Jur., N. S. 228; 28 L. J., clerk or servant, shall steal any M. C. 70; 7 W. R. 240; 32 L. T. "chattel, money, or valuable secur"ity belonging to or in the possesThe prisoner, who lodged in the "sion or power of his master or emhouse of the prosecutor, agreed with "ployer, shall be guilty of felony, his wife that they should go away," and being convicted thereof, shall and live together in adultery. The "be liable, at the discretion of the prisoner left the house, and was fol-" court, to be kept in penal servilowed by the wife of the prosecutor. "tude for any term not exceeding 329. The prisoner was occasionally employed as a clerk to the prosecutors, and having received from them a cheque on their bankers, payable to a creditor, for the purpose of giving it to the creditor, appropriated it to his own use:-Held, a larceny of the cheque. Rex v. Metcalf, 1 M. C. C. 433. It is larceny in the servant of the drawer of a cheque on bankers to whom it is given to deliver to a third person, to appropriate the value to his own use. Reg. v. Heath, 2 M. C. C. 33. Where a servant by a false pretence induces his master to give him a cheque as agent of a creditor of his master with a view of its being handed over to that creditor, and the servant appropriates the cheque to his own use, he cannot be indicted for stealing it. Reg. v. Essex, Dears. & B. C. C. 371; 4 Jur., N. S. 16; 27 L. J., M. C. 20; 7 Cox, C. C. 384. If a servant takes his master's property, and hands it over to another as a gift, it is as much a felony as if he takes it to a pawnbroker and pledges it. Reg. v. White, 9 C. & P. 344-Gurney and Erskine. them to a customer, and brings them back, without authorizing him to sell them to or leave them with the customer, and he, instead of taking the goods to the specific place, sells them for his own advantage, he will be guilty of larceny, inasmuch as the felonious intent came upon him at a time when he had the custody only, and not the possession, of the goods. Reg. v. Harvey, 9 C. & P. 353-Alderson. The driver of a glass-coach hired for the day is not the servant of the party hiring it, so as to bring him within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 46. Rex v. Haydon, 7 C. & P. 445— Patteson and Gurney. If a servant receives from his master goods to sell, and appropriates them to his own use, he is not guilty of embezzlement but larceny. Reg. v. Hawkins, 4 Cox, C. C. 224. The prisoner was employed by the prosecutor to make up canvas bags at his (the prisoner's) own house. The canvas was cut out at the shop of the prosecutor and taken away by the prisoner. A portion of it was duly worked up and returned, the remainder was converted by him to his own use:-Held, that he could not be convicted of larceny.--Reg. v. Saward, 5 Cox, C. C. 295. A. had agreed to buy straw of B., and sent his servant C. to fetch it; C. did so, and put down the whole quantity of straw at the door of A.'s stable, which was in a courtyard of A., and then went to A. and asked him to send some one It is larceny for a person hired with the key of the hay-loft, which for the special purpose of driving was over the stable, which A. did, sheep to a fair to convert them to and C. put part of the straw into his own use, he having the inten- the hay-loft, and carried the rest tion so to do at the time of receiv-away to a public-house, and sold it: ing them from the owner. Rex v. Held, that this carrying away of Stock, 1 M. C. C. 87. If the owner of goods employs a person, not in his service, to take them to a particular place, shews the straw by C., if done with a felonious intent, was a larceny, and not an embezzlement, as the delivery of the straw to A. was complete when it was put down at the stabledoor. Reg. v. Hayward, 1 C. & K. 518-Tindal. Where a servant received money from his master in order to pay the wages of work-people therewith, and in the book in which the account of the monies so paid was kept by the master entries were found charging the master with more money than the servant had actually disbursed; but there was no proof that he had ever delivered this account to his master: -Held, that this did not amount to larceny in the servant. Reg. v. Butler, 2 C. & K. 340-Wightman. On the trial of an indictment for larceny as servant, it appeared that the prisoner lived in the house of the prosecutor, and acted as nurse to his sick daughter, the prisoner having board and lodging and occasional presents for her services, but no wages. While the prisoner was so residing, the prosecutor's wife gave the prisoner money to pay a coal bill, which money the prisoner kept, and brought back a forged receipt to the coal bill :-Held, that the prisoner was not the servant of the prosecutor, but that this was a larceny of the money. Reg. v. Smith, 1 C. & K. 423-Coleridge. A. employed B. to take his barge from S. to E., and paid him his wages in advance, and gave him a separate sum of three sovereigns to pay the tonnage dues. B. took the barge sixteen miles, and paid tonnage dues to an amount rather under 21., and appropriated the remaining sovereign to his own use: -Held, a larceny. Reg. v. Goode, Car. & M. 582; S. P., Reg. v. Beaman, Car. & M. 595-Patteson. The prisoner, who was not otherwise in the prosecutor's service, was employed by the prosecutor to drive six pigs from C. to U. On the way he left one at Mr. M.'s stating that it was tired, and he told the prosecutor that he had done so. The prosecutor told the prisoner to go and ask Mr. M. to keep the pig for him. The prisoner went to Mr. M.'s and sold the pig to Mr. M.:— Held, no larceny. Reg. v. Jones, Car. & M. 611-Cresswell. The prisoner was a servant in the employment of grocers who were in the habit of purchasing kitchenstuff. It was his duty to receive and weigh it, and, if the chief clerk was in the counting-house, to give the seller a ticket specifying the weight and price of the article, and the name of the seller, which ticket was signed with the initials of the prisoner. The seller, on taking this ticket to the chief clerk, received the price of the kitchen-stuff. In the absence of the chief clerk the prisoner had himself authority to pay the seller, and afterwards, on producing the ticket to the chief clerk, was repaid. The prisoner had, on the day mentioned in the indictment, presented a ticket to the chief clerk, purporting to contain all the usual specifications, and marked with the prisoner's initials, and demanded the sum of 2s. 3d., which he alleged that he had paid for kitchen-stuff. He received the money and appropriated it to his own use, and it was afterwards discovered that no such person as was described in the ticket had ever sold any such article to the prosecutors, but that the ticket was fraudulently made out and presented by the prisoner :-Held, a case of false pretences, and that an indictment for larceny could not be sustained. Reg. v. Barnes, 2 Den. C. C. 59; T. & M. 387; 14 Jur. 1123; 20 L. J., M. C. 34. The prisoner was sent with his master's cart for some coals. The coals were delivered to the prisoner and deposited in the cart, their price being entered to the master's account. On the road home the prisoner disposed of a portion of the coals:-Held, that this was larceny of the coals and not embezzlement, the prisoner having determined his exclusive possession of the coals | tween the buyer and the employer, when they were deposited in the he could not be convicted of stealcart, and the possession from that time being in the master. Reg. v. Reed, Dears. C. C. 257; 2 C. L. R. 607; 18 Jur. 67; 23 L. J., M. C. 25. G. was indicted for larceny. The evidence shewed that he was the prosecutor's servant; that it was his duty to receive and pay monies for the prosecutor, and make entries of such receipts and payments in a book which was examined by the prosecutor from time to time; that the prisoner on one occasion shewed a balance in his favour of 21., by taking credit for payments falsely entered in the book as having been made by him, when in fact they had not been made by him, and that the prisoner received from his master the sum of 21., as a balance due to him. He was convicted :Held, that the conviction was wrong. Reg. v. Green, Dears. C. C. 323; 2 Č. L. R. 603; 18 Jur. 158; 6 Cox, C. C. 296. Where a person gave his servant a 57. note to get changed, and he got the note changed, and made off with the change:-Held, to be no larceny, but an embezzlement. Rex v. Sullens, Car. C. L. 319; 1 M. C. C. 129. A shopman was authorized to sell his master's goods at the price marked upon them, but at nothing less. He sold a pair of trousers at a lower price than that marked, and embezzled the money :-Held, not to be a larceny of the trousers. Reg. v. Brackett, 4 Cox, C. C. 274 -Wightman. A miller's foreman, employed to sell goods and receive the money, sold some to a customer, who paid him for them. He did not enter the sale in his books, or account for the price, according to the usual course of business, but concealed the whole transaction, and appropriated the money:-Held, that there being an actual binding sale as be ing the goods, although he was guilty of embezzling the price. Reg. v. Betts, Bell, C. C. 90; 5 Jur., Ñ. S. 274; 28 L. J., M. C. 69; 7 W. R. 239; 32 L. T. 339; 8 Cox, C. C. 140. The prisoner was tried upon an indictment which charged, that whilst the servant of A. he stole money belonging to A. The evidence was, that the prisoner was the servant of B., and that the money belonged to B., but was in the possession of A. as the agent of B. He was accordingly convicted of simple larceny:-Held, that the conviction was right. Reg. v. Jennings, Dears. & B. C. C. 447; 4 Jur., N. S. 146; 7 Cox, C. C. 397. The prisoner was employed to conduct an office in connection with a branch bank. His salary included his services and the providing an office, which was in his own house, where he carried on another business. The office was fitted up at the expense of the bank, and in it there was an iron safe, the property of the bank, into which it was his duty, when night came, to put any money received during the day which had not been required. The manager of the branch bank kept a duplicate key of this safe. It was the prisoner's duty to receive money from customers, to be put to their accounts with the branch bank, and to pay cheques. He furnished accounts to the manager, and it was his duty to pay over weekly to the manager the excess not required at the office. He also received monies from the branch as required, which were entered in his weekly accounts. In September, 1855, his accounts were audited, and his cash found correct; and from that time up to September, 1857, he continued to furnish weekly accounts which were correct in their statements of receipts and payments, but no examination of the balances appearing from those accounts to be in his fraudulently charged his employers hands took place. At the latter as having paid 14s. 8d., and approdate, however, he was about 3,000l. priated the 1s. 8d. to his own use: short in his accounts, and admitted-Held, to amount to larceny. Reg. that he had taken that amount. v. Low, 10 Cox, C. C. 168; 14 W. The jury found the prisoner guilty R. 286; 13 L. T., N. S. 642-C. of larceny as a clerk, in having C. R. stolen some money received from customers, which before such stealing had been placed in the safe, and made the subject of a weekly account:-Held, that it was not necessary that the jury should find any specific amount to have been stolen on any particular day, and that there was evidence to go to the jury of larceny. Reg. v. Wright, Dears. & B. C. C. 431; 4 Jur., N. S. 313; 27 L. J., M. C. 65; 7 Cox, C. C. 413. A person employed as a distraining broker, if engaged in the service of the prosecutor only, and paid a salary by him, is a servant within 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 67. Reg. v. Flanagan, 10 Cox, C. C. 561-Russell Gurney. A man was indicted for larceny as a servant. He was groom in the service of the prosecutor, and was supplied by his master with money to pay for the keep of the stallion of which he had the charge. In the course of his employment he stated that he had paid three sums one Thomas Payne, which was untrue, and appropriated these sums to his own use:-Held, that it was not larceny. Reg. v. Dartnell, 20 L. T., N. S. 1020-Byles. It was the duty of a clerk to the prosecutors to ascertain daily the amount of dock and town dues pay-of 78. 2d., 7s. 4d. and 7s. 6d., to able by the prosecutors on the exportation of their goods, and, having received the money from the prosecutors' cash-keeper, to pay it over to those who were entitled to it; the clerk falsely represented that a sum of 37. 108. 4d. was due on a certain day, whereas, in truth, a sum of 17. 38. only was due, and, having obtained the larger sum from the cash-keeper, converted the difference to his own use:-Held, that he was not guilty of larceny, but might have been convicted of obtaining money by false pretences. Reg. v. Thompson, L. & C. 233; 9 Cox, C. C. 222; 32 L. J., M. C. 57; 8 Jur., N. S. 1162; 11 W. R. 41; 7 L. T., N. S. 393. A servant's duty was to give out materials to be wrought up, and pay the workmen when the work was finished, and for this purpose he received cash from his masters, and at the end of each week he accounted with them for sums so received and paid. The cash was kept by him, but he was not authorized to apply the money in any other way. He paid C. 138., and Money was given to the prisoner for the purpose of paying turnpike tolls at two gates on his journey. Twelve days afterwards, on being asked if he had paid the toll at one of the gates, the prisoner said he had not-that he had gone by a parish road which only crossed the road at the gate, and so no toll was payable there, and that he had spent the money on beer for himself and his mates. The prisoner having been convicted of larceny of the money, but it not appearing on a case reserved as to whether the facts proved a larceny, that the question of felonious intention had been distinctly left to the jury, the court quashed the conviction. Reg. v. Deering, 20 L. T., N. S. 680; 17 W. R. 807; 11 Cox, C. C. 298 -C. C. R. The prisoner lived with the prosecutor as his wife, and was authorized by him to draw and sign |