cheques and bills in his name, he | ited with another to be returned in being blind and unable to do this himself. He entrusted her with a large sum of money to pay into the bank, which she did not do, but appropriated it to her own use:-Held, that the question, whether she was a servant to the prosecutor, was one for the jury. Reg. v. Warren, 10 Cox, C. C. 359-Chambers, C. S. 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. (p) By Fraudulent Bailees. Who are.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 3, "whosover, being a bailee "of any chattel, money, or valua"ble security, shall fraudulently "take or convert the same to his own use, or the use of any person "other than the owner thereof, al"though he shall not break bulk or "otherwise determine the bailment, "shall be guilty of larceny, and 'may be convicted thereof upon "an indictment for larceny; but "this section shall not extend to any offence punishable on summary conviction." (Former provision, 20 & 21 Vict. c. 54, s. 4.) 66 A bailee charged with fraudulently converting bailed property under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 54, s. 4, was indicted in the ordinary form as for larceny, with a conclusion contra forman: Held, good. Reg. v. Haigh, 7 Cox, C. Č. 403-Wight man. A bailment under this section has reference to something depos specie, and does not apply to the case of a treasurer of a money club, who is under no obligation to return to the members the specific coins intrusted to him. Reg. v. Hassall, L. & C. 58; 8 Cox, C. C. 491; 7 Jur., N. S. 1064; 30 L. J., M. C. 175; 9 W. R. 708; 4 L. T., N. S. 561; S. P., Reg. v. Garrett, 8 Cox, C. C. 368; 2 F. & F. 14— Willes. A person who receives money on behalf of another, does not thereby become a bailee of the money. Reg. v. Hoare, 1 F. & F. 647-Wightman. B. was charged in a first count with larceny as a bailee. In a second count with larceny: B. was a married woman, living with her husband, and at the request of a lodger in her husband's house took charge of his box, containing money. She afterwards fraudulently stole the money, and converted it to her own use. The husband knew nothing whatever of the transaction :--Held, that either she was a bailee, and guilty under the first count; or, if not a bailee, she was guilty of larceny under the second count. Reg. v. Robson, L. & C. 93; 9 Cox, C. C. 29; 8 Jur., N. S. 64; 31 L. J., M. C. 22; 10 W. R. 61; 5 L. T., N. S. 402. A bailment under the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 54, s. 4, does not necessarily mean a bailment by contract, but a bailment by licence is sufficient. Ib.--Martin. A., being somewhat tipsy, lay on the ground, partly asleep, and while in that state saw the prisoner take his watch out of his pocket, which he took no steps to prevent, believing that the prisoner, with whom he had been acquainted for some time, was acting solely from friendly motives:-Held, that this evidence would not support a charge of larceny at common law, but disclosed a sufficient bailment to bring the case within the above enactment. Reg. v. Reeves, 5 Jur., N. S. 716-Crowder. A., who was a trustee of a friendly society, was appointed by a resolution of the society to receive money from the treasurer, and carry it to the bank. He received the money from the treasurer's clerk, but instead of taking it to the bank, he applied it to his own purposes. He was indicted for stealing, as bailee of the money of the treasurer, and also for a common law larceny, the money being laid as that of the treasurer. The 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, s. 18, vests the property of friendly societies in the trustees, and directs that in all indictments the property shall be laid in their names :-Held, that A. could not be convicted either as a bailee or of a common law larceny. Reg. v. Loose, Bell, C. C. 259; 29 L. J., M. C. 132; 8 Cox, C. C. 302; 6 Jur., N. S. 513; 8 W. R. 422; 2 L. T., N. S. 254. and afterwards pretended to the prosecutor that he had delivered to him the full quantity:-Held, that even if it was necessary to shew a specific appropriation of the coals to the prosecutor, there was sufficient evidence of such appropriation, and that the prisoner was rightly convicted of larceny as a bailee. Reg. v. Bunkall, L. & C. 371; 9 Cox, C. C. 419; 10 Jur., N. S. 216; 33 L. J., M. C. 75; 12 W. R. 414; 9 L. T., N. S. 778. To sustain a charge of larceny by a bailee it is necessary to prove some act of conversion inconsistent with the purposes of the bailment. Reg. v. Jackson, 9 Cox, C. C. 505-Martin. A carrier who, receiving money to procure goods, obtained and duly delivered the goods, but fraudulently retained the money, may be convicted of larceny as a bailee. Reg. v. Wells, 1 F. & F. 109-Erle. A carrier employed by the prosecutor to deliver in his (the prisoner's) cart a boat's cargo of coals to persons named in a list, to whom only he was authorized to deliver them, and, having fraudulently sold some of the coals, and appropriated the proceeds, is properly convicted of larceny as a bailee. Reg. v. Davies, 14 W. R. 679; 14 L. T., N. S. 491 Indictment charged the prisoner with obtaining 261. 5s., the monies of H., by false pretences. According to the prosecutor's evidence, he was induced to part with the money on the prisoner's statement that he was to pay 1357. for a pair of carriage horses. No such averment was contained in the indictment.-C. C. R. It was urged that the prisoner might be convicted of larceny as a bailee; but the money having been obtained by fraud, and the prosecutor having parted with all control as well over it as with the possession:-Held, that there was no bailment, and that he could not be convicted. Reg. v. Hunt, 8 Cox, C. C. 495 Russell Gurney, Recorder. The prosecutor gave the prisoner money to buy half a ton of coals for him. He bought the coals, and took a receipt in his own name, and used his own horse and cart to fetch them, but on the way home he appropriated a portion of the coals to his own use, Husband and Wife.]—A married woman, at the request of A., took charge of his box containing money, and afterwards fraudulently stole the money. The husband had nothing to do with any part of the matter:-Held, that she was guilty either of fraud as a bailee or of a larceny. Reg. v. Robson, 31 L. J., M. C. 22; L. & C. 93; 9 Cox, C. C. 29; 8 Jur., N. S. 64; 10 W. R. 61; 5 L. T., N. S. 402. Where husband and wife were jointly indicted for larceny, as bailees, and it was proved that they took charge of the property, but the wife alone disposed of it afterwards : Held, that neither could be convict- be convicted as principals in the ed; the wife, because she could not larceny. Reg. v. M'Carthy, 2 C. be a bailee; the husband, because & K. 379-Maule. he was not proved to have taken part in the conversion. Reg. v. Denmour, 8 Cox, C. C. 440-Martin. (q) By parties in concert. 2. By Persons in the Queen's Service, or by the Police. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 69, "whosoever being employed in the "public service of her Majesty, or Where two planned to rob the "being a constable or other perprosecutrix of some coats, and one "son employed in the police of any got her to go with him that he " county, city, borough, district or might get some money to buy them "place whatsoever, shall steal any of her, and she left the coats with " chattel, money or valuable securthe other, who immediately ab- "ity belonging to or in the possessconded with them :-Held, that "sion or power of her Majesty, or the receipt of the one amounted to "intrusted to or received or taken a felonious taking of the coats by "into possession by him by virtue both. Rex v. County, 2 Russ. C."of his employment, shall be guilty & M. 230, 329-Bayley. "of felony, and, being convicted Where the evidence against two," thereof, shall be liable, at the disindicted for stealing oats, was that one of them took the oats from the prosecutor's sacks, and placed them under a cart, and the other came up a few minutes after, and said, "It is all right," and put the oats in a cart, and took them to his house; on an objection that there was no evidence to connect the latter with the original taking :--Held, that the evidence shewed one transaction in which both concurred. Reg. v. Kelly, 2 Cox, C. C. 171--Maule. J. had employed M. to load sacks of oats, the property of J., from a vessel in the trams of K., who was to carry them on the trams to the warehouse of K. By previous concert between M. and K., oats were taken by M. from two of the sacks and put into a nose-bag in the absence of K., and hidden under a tram. K. returned in a few minutes, and took the nose-bag, and its contents, from under the tram, and took them away, M. being then within three or four yards of him :--Held, that both were principals in the larceny, and that K. was not a receiver; and that, as it was all one transaction, and both had concurred in it, and both had been present at some part of the transaction, both could "cretion of the court, to be kept in "penal servitude for any term not "exceeding fourteen years, and not "less than five years (27 & 28 Vict. "c. 47), or to be imprisoned for any 66 term not exceeding two years, "with or without hard labour, and "with or without solitary confine"ment." An indictment, framed upon 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 4, s. 1, alleged that A., being employed in the public service, and intrusted, by virtue of such employment with the receipt of money the property of the Queen, fraudulently applied to his own use 5,000l. so received, and feloniously stole the same. It was proved that he was an officer of inland revenue, and received certain taxes; that it was his duty to make returns to inspectors, and that these returns, when rendered, shewed a much larger balance in his hands than he was allowed to retain. At last his accounts were examined, and a statement extracted from them was produced to him, shewing a balance in his hands of 5,2147. and a fraction, which he admitted to be correct. He was then asked if he was prepared to hand over that balance, or any part of it, and he said he was not. He was then reminded that there was a balance of 300l. against him from the previous Monday, which was a receipt day at T. A. then took out a sum of money less than the 300%., and, on being asked what he had done with the rest, said he had spent it in an unfortunate speculation :--Held, that the evidence in respect of the 300l. was sufficient to sustain a conviction. Reg. v. Moah, Dears. C. C. 626; 2 Jur., N. S. 213; 25 L. J., M. C. 66. 3. By Post-Office Servants and others. + Glass, 2 C. & K. 395; 1 Den. C. C. 215. S., post-mistress of G., received from a letter unsealed, but addressed to B., and with it 17. for a post-office order, 3d. for the poundage on the order, 1d. for the postage, and 1d. for the person who got the order. S. gave the letter, unsealed, and the money, to the prisoner, who was the letter-carrier from G. to L., telling him to get the order at L. and enclose it in the letter, and post the letter at L. The prisoner destroyed the letter, never procured the order, and kept the money :-Held, that he was in dictable for stealing, embezzling and (7 Will 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 26.) What amounts to a Stealing.]-destroying a post letter, he being at Fraudulently obtaining the mail the time in the employ of the postbags by delivery from one in the office. Reg. v. Bickerstaff, 2 C. & post-office to the prisoner, is a steal- K. 761-Cresswell. ing out of the post-office. Rex v. Pearce, 2 East, P. C. 603. The horse mail bags, being left by the mail rider after he had taken possession of them for a temporary purpose for two minutes, were stolen during his absence:-Held, within the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. Rex v. Robinson, 2 Stark, 485. A person employed in the postoffice committed a mistake in the sorting of two letters containing money, and he threw the letters unopened, and the money, down a water-closet, in order to avoid a penalty attached to such mistakes: 3.-Held, that there was a larceny of the letters and money, and also a secreting of the letters. Reg. v. Wynn, 2 C. & K. 859; 1 Den. C. C. 365; T. & M. 32; 3 New Sess. Cas. 414; 13 Jur. 107; 18 L. J., M. C. 51; 3 Cox, C. C. 271. Servants.]-S. delivered two 51. notes to D., the wife of the postmaster of C., at which post-office money orders were not granted, and asked her to send them by G., the letter-carrier, from C. to W., in order that he might get two 57. money orders for them at the W. post-office. D. gave these instructions to G., and put the notes, by his desire, into his bag. G. afterwards took the notes out of the bag, and pretended, when he got to the W. post-office, that he had lost them. It was found by the jury that G. had no intention to steal the notes when they were given to him by D.:-Held, that this taking of the notes by G. was not a larceny, the notes not being in his possession in the course of his duty as a post-office servant. Reg. v. If a person, while engaged in gratuitously assisting a postmaster, at his request, in sorting the letters, steals one of them, he is liable to the severer penalties imposed by 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 26, as a person employed under the postoffice. Reg. v. Reason, 2 C. L. R. 120; 23 L. J., M. C. 11; 6 Cox, C. C. C. 227; Dears. C. C. 226; 17 Jur. 1014. A. was indicted for stealing a post letter containing money, he being a sub-sorter at the general post-office. An inspector of the post-office had put some marked money into a letter, which was then sealed, and stamped with the to Berkeley, at a weekly salary paid him by the post-mistress, but which was repaid to her by the post-office :-Held, that S. was a person employed by the post-office within 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2. Rex v. Salisbury, 5 C. & P. 155–Patteson. usual postage stamp. It was ad-tress to carry letters from Dursley dressed to Mr. H., and delivered in at the window of the post-office to another inspector, who handed it to a third. This last locked it up for the night, and on the following morning gave it to a sorter, who, according to his instructions, secret ly placed it among other letters, which A. in due course would have to sort. He opened and secreted the letter, abstracting the money, which was found upon him. It was no part of the ordinary duty of the inspector to receive letters at the window, but the whole scheme was arranged for the detection of A.:-Held, that he could not be convicted of stealing a postletter. Reg. v. Shepherd, Dears. C. C. 606; 2 Jur., N. S. 96; 25 L. J., M. C. 52. A letter carrier, whose duty it was, in case he was unable to deliver any letter, to bring it to the post-office on his return from delivery, not having delivered a letter containing money, gave no account of it, and being asked why he had not delivered it, produced it unopened, and the coin safe within, from his trousers pocket, stating, untruly, that the house where it ought to have been delivered was closed. Upon an indictment for stealing the letter, the jury found him guilty, and that he detained it with the intention of stealing it:Held, that so dealing with the letter amounted to larceny. Reg. v. Poynton, 9 Cox, C. C. 249; L. & C. 247; 8 Jur., N. S. 1218; 32 L. J., M. C. 29; 11 W. R. 73; 7 L. T., N. S. 434. Receiving-Houses.]--A receivinghouse was not a post-office within 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2, but it was a place for the receipt of letters, and the whole shop was to be considered as the place for the receipt of letters, and not the mere letterbox; and therefore if a person took a letter and put it on the shopcounter of the receiving-house or gave it to one of the persons belonging to the shop there, that was a putting the letter into the post. Rex v. Pearson, 4 C. & P. 572Littledale and Bosanquet. To constitute the offence of stealing a letter from a place for the receipt of letters, under 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2, it was essential that the letter should be carried out of the shop which was the place for the receipt of letters; and, therefore, if a person took a letter and stole its contents, without taking the letter out of the shop, that was not an offence, within that statute. Ib. Letters and Post-Office Orders.]-The president of a department in the post-office put a half-sovereign into a letter, on which he wrote a fictitious address, and dropped the letter, with the money in it, into the letter box of a post-office receiving-house, where the prisoner was employed in the service of the post-office. The prisoner stole the letter and money-Held, that this A person employed at a receiving house of the general post-office to clean boots, and to assist in tying up the letter bag, was not a servant of the post-office within 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2. Rex v. Pear-was a stealing of a post letter, conson, 4 C. & P. 572-Littledale and Bosanquet. S. was employed by a post-mis taining money, and that this was not the less a post letter within 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 26, be |
