cause it had a fictitious address. | letter-carrier stole the letter and the Reg. v. Young, 2 C. & K. 466; 1 sovereign:-Held, not rightly conDen. C. C. 194. R., an officer in the post-office in London, intending to try the honesty of G., the post-mistress of Enstone, went to Oxford, and having put marked money into a letter, directed "Thomas Hicks, Radford Lane, Exeter," placed this letter in a bundle of letters in the Oxford post-office, which was to go to the Enstone post-office. This letter going in the bundle of letters to the Enstone post-office, G. took out the marked money, and denied any knowledge of the letter. R. neither knew any person named Thomas Hicks, nor that there was any such place as Radford Lane in Exeter: -Held, that this was not a stealing of a post letter, but that the taking of the money by G. was a larceny. Reg. v. Gardener, 1 C. & K. 628-Pollock. A post-office being at an inn, a person was sent to put a letter, containing promissory notes, into the the post. He took it to the inn, with money to pre-pay the postage; he did not put it into the letterbox, but laid the letter, and the money upon it, upon a table in the passage of the inn, in which passage the letter box was, and he pointed out the letter to the prisoner, who was a female servant at the inn, who said she would give it to them." The prisoner, who was not authorized by the inn-keeper, her master, to receive letters for him, stole the the letter and its contents:-Held, that this was not a post-letter within 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, ss. 27, 28; and that the stealing of the letter and its contents by the prisoner was not an offence within either of those sections. Reg. v. Harley, 1 C. & K. 89-Patteson. 66 An inspector secretly put a letter, prepared for the purpose, containing a sovereign, amongst some letters, which a letter carrier, suspected of dishonesty, was about to sort. The victed of stealing a post-letter, such letter not having been put in the post in the ordinary way; but rightly convicted of larceny of the sovereign, laid as the property of the Postmaster-General. Reg. v. Rathbone, 2 M. C. C. 242; Car. & M. 220. A servant, being sent with a letter, and a penny to pre-pay the postage of it at a receiving-house, found the door shut, and in consequence put the penny inside the letter, and fastened it in by means of a pin, and then put the letter into an unpaid letter-box. A messenger in the Ĝeneral Post-office stole this letter, with the penny in it:-Held, that he might be convicted of stealing a post-letter containing money, although the money was not put into the letter for the purpose of being conveyed, by means of it, to the person to whom it was addressed. Reg. v. Mence, Car & M. 234Denman. A post-office order, for the payment of 57. in the ordinary form, is a warrant and order for the payment of money, and may be so described in an indictment for larceny. Reg. v. Gilchrist, 2 M. C. C. 233; Car. & M. 224. A. Brought a letter, enclosing a 107. note, to a district receivinghouse, and desired that it might be registered. The post-mistress took the money for the registration, and, being busy at the time, requested A. to call again. In the meantime she put the letter under a glass case, to which the prisoner had access. When the letter was taken up, for the purpose of being despatched, it was found that the note had been extracted :-Held, that the letter was a post-letter. Reg. v. Rogers, 5 Cox, C. C. 293-Cresswell. A letter containing a post-office order, directed to John Davies, was misdelivered to John Davis, one of the. prisoners. Not being able to read, he took it to W. D., the other prisoner who read it to him. He then " chattel, money, or valuable secursaid the letter and order were not for "ity (as to the interpretation of this him, but was advised by W. D. to "word, see sect. 1) to the value in keep them and get the money. Both "the whole of 51. or more, shall be prisoners then went to the post-of-"guilty of felony, and being confice, obtained the money and appro- "victed thereof, shall be liable, at priated it to their own use:-Held," the discretion of the court, to be that a conviction for larceny of the "kept in penal servitude for any order could not be supported. Reg. term not exceeding fourteen years, v. Davies, Dears. C. C. 640; 2 Jur., "and not less than five years (27 N. S. 478; 25 L. J., M. C. 91; 7 Cox," & 28 Vict. c. 47), or to be imC. C. 104. Where a prisoner had obtained letters from the post-office by falsely representing that he was sent for them by the person to whom they were addressed-Held that if he then meant to steal them he might be convicted of larceny. Reg. v. Gillings, 1 F. & F. 36-Channell. Indictment.]-In an indictment on 7 Will. 4 & Í Vict. c. 36, s. 26, for secreting a post letter, it is not necessary to state the purpose for which the letter was secreted. Reg. v. Wynn, 2 C. & K. 859; 1 Den. C. C. 365; T. & M. 32; 18 L. J., M. C. 51. Evidence.]-Possession by a letter carrier of a bank note some months after it has been sent by post and lost, is not sufficient evidence of a felonious stealing by him, although not accounted for otherwise than by his mere assertion that he found it. Reg. v. Smith, 3 F. & F. 123Bramwell. At the trial of a person on 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2, for embezzling a letter containing a bill of exchange, he being at the time employed under the post-office, it was sufficient to prove that such person acted in the service of the post-office, and it was not necessary to go into proof of his appointment. Rex v. Rees, 6 C. & P. 606-Parke. 4. In a Dwelling-house. To the value of £5.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 60, "whosoever shall "steal in any dwelling-house any prisoned for any term not exceed"ing two years, with or without "hard labour, and with or without "solitary confinement." (Former provisions, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 12, and Anne, st. 1, c. 7, respectively repealed.) If a prisoner, who was in the service of the prosecutor, stole a quantity of lace in several pieces, the pieces together being above 57. in value, and brought them all out of his master's house at the same time, this was a capital offence, although it was shewn that the prisoner had the opportunity of stealing the lace by a piece at a time, and that no one of the pieces was worth 51. Rex v. Jones, 4 C. & P. 217-Bolland. A servant indicted for stealing bank-notes, the property of her master, in his dwelling-house, set up, as her defence, that she found them in in the passage, and not knowing to whom they belonged, kept them to see if they were advertised:-Held, she ought to have inquired of her master whether they were his or not; and that not having done so, but having taken them away from the house, she was guilty of stealing them. Reg. v. Kerr, 8 C. & P. 176 --Park. Stealing in a bed-room over a stable in a yard, not under the same roof, nor having any direct commu nication with the house in which the prosecutor resides, cannot be properly charged as a stealing in his dwelling-house. Rex v. Turner, 6 C. & P. 407-Vaughan. If one, on going to bed, puts his clothes and money by the bed-side, they are under the protection of the dwelling-house, and not of the person; and, therefore, a party stealing them may be convicted of stealing in a dwelling-house. Rex v. Thomas, Car. C. L. 295. A man went to bed with a prostitute, having put his watch in his hat on the table; the woman stole the watch whilst he was asleep :Held, that the offence was that of stealing in a dwelling-house, and not a stealing from the person. Reg. v. Hamilton, 8 C. & P. 49-Parke and Patteson. Under 12 Anne, st. 1, c. 7, the larceny must have been of things under the protection of the house, and not of any person within it, therefore not of money in the pocket. Rex v. Owen, 2 East, P. C. 645; 2 Leach, C. C. 572. Property left by mistake at a house, and delivered to the occupier, under the supposition that it was for one of the persons in the house, is entitled to the protection of the house. Rex v. Carroll, 1 M. C. C. 89. The goods of a lodger's guest are under the protection of the dwelling-house; therefore a lodger who invites a man to his room, and then steals his goods to the value of 40s. (now 57.) when not about his person, is liable to be found guilty of stealing in a dwelling-house. Rex v. Taylor, R. & R. C. C. 418. Stealing in a dwelling-house to the value of 51. or more by the owner of the house was within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 12. Reg. v. Bowden, 2 M. C. C. 285; 1 C. & K. 147. A servant let a person into his master's house on a Saturday afternoon, and concealed him there all night, in order that he might rob the house, and on Sunday morning left the premises. In pursuance of the previous arrangement, the man, in the servant's absence, broke into the bed-room of the master, and stole the contents of his cash-box:— FISH. DIG.-20. Held, that the man who took the property from the cash-box was rightly charged as a thief. Reg. v. Tuckwell, Car. & M. 215-Coleridge. A member of a club was indicted for stealing some of the plate used at the club-house. The house-steward slept in the house, and stated, that he had the charge of all the plate, and was responsible for it; but the plate was delivered every night to the under-butler, who was appointed by the club, and by him placed in a chest in the pantry. The indictment described the goods as the property of the house-steward, and alleged it to have been stolen in his dwelling-house:-Held, that, upon the evidence, it was wrong in both respects, inasmuch as his sleeping in the house was only as a servant of the club, and his alleged responsibility was not coupled with any custody of the property, either by himself or his own servants. Reg. v. Ashley, 1 C. & K. 198 Law and Bullock. Indictment.]-A. and B. were found guilty on an indictment containing two counts-one for stealing in a dwelling-house above the value of 5l., and the other for simple larceny, and the judgment was, that they should be transported for ten years for the felony aforesaid :Held, that the judgment was bad; as either the indictment alleged one felony in two counts, in which case the judgment was bad for uncertainty, the court not having the power to apply it to the particular count in the indictment which would support it; or it alleged a separate felony on each count, in which case, the jury having found but one offence, the judgment is bad, because the word felony cannot be treated as nomen collectionis. Campbell v. Reg. (in error), 2 New Sess. Cas. 297; 11 Q. B. 799; 10 Jur. 329; 15 L. J., M. C. 76. In an indictment for attempting to steal goods in a dwelling-house, out the use of any actual violence, it is not necessary to specify any particular article or articles. A general allegation of an attempt to steal "goods and chattels" is sufficient. Reg. v. Johnson, 10 Jur., N. S. 1160; 34 L. J., M. C. 24; 13 W. R. 101; L. & C. 489. is evidence of an intention to obtain money by threats, and the bodily fear may be inferred, although the persons so treated may deny that such acts created alarm or fear. Ib. 5. From the Person. If a person with menaces demanded a sum of money of another, and that the other did not give it to this was a felony within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 6; but if the person demanding the money knew that the money was not then in the possession of the party, and only intended to obtain an order for the payment of it, it was otherwise. Rex v. Edwards, 6 C. & P. 515-Patteson. With Menaces.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 61, "whosoever shall "steal any chattel, money or valu"able security in any dwelling-him because he had it not with him, "house, and shall by any menace or "threat put any one being therein "in bodily fear, shall be guilty of "felony, and, being convicted there"of, shall be liable, at the discretion "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 "term not exceeding two years, "with or without hard labour, and "with or without solitary confine"ment. 99 (Former provision, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 86, s. 5.) 66 An indictment for stealing in the dwelling-house, persons being therein and put in fear, must state that the persons were put in fear by the prisoners. Rex v. Etherington, 2 Leach, C. C. 671; 2 East, P. C. 635. In order to constitute the offence of stealing in a dwelling-house, and by menaces and threats putting persons being therein in bodily fear, it is not necessary that all the persons engaged in the crime should be actually in the house; and if one remains outside, he may be equally guilty of using menaces and threats, if there was a common purpose to inspire terror. Reg. v. Murphy, 6 Cox, C. C. 340-Williams. A threat to a person outside the house is not within the words of the statute, but it is a circumstance from which the jury may infer the line of conduct inside the house. Ib. The act of placing persons with their faces against a wall, and desiring them not to look round, with To constitute a stealing from the person, the thing must be completely removed from the person; removal from the place where it was, if it remains throughout with the person, is not sufficient. Rex v. Thompson, 1 M. C. C. 78. But such removal would be suf ficient to constitute a simple larceny. Ib. A watch was carried in a waistcoat pocket, with a chain attached passing through a button-hole of the waistcoat, being there secured by a watch-key. The prisoner took the watch out of the pocket and by force drew the chain out of the button-hole, but the watch-key having been caught by a button of the waistcoat, the watch and chain remained suspended-Held, a sufficient severance to maintain a conviction for stealing from the person. Reg. v. Simpson, Dears. C. C. 421; 3 C. L. R. 80; 18 Jur. 1030; 24 L. J., M. C. 7; 6 Cox, C. C. 422. On a trial for robbery and stealing from the person, it was proved that the prosecutor, who was paralysed, received, whilst sitting on a sofa in his room, a violent blow on the head from one of the prisoners, whilst the other went to a cupboard in the same room and stole therefrom a cash-box :-Held, that it was a question for the jury whether the cash-box was at the time under the protection of the prosecutor. If so, the charge of stealing from the person would be sustained. Reg. v. Selway, 8 Cox, C. C. 235 -Chambers, C. S. 66 6. By Tenants or Lodgers. or person letting to hire." (Former provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 45. By 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27, 3 Will. & M. c. 9, was repealed.) The prisoners were tenants and occupiers of a house in which were certain gas-fittings belong to a public company. It became necessary that a gas-meter should be changed, and the old one was taken down and left in the custody of the prisoners till called for by the company's servant. In the meantime they converted it to their use :--Held, that they could not be convicted of larceny. Reg. v. Mattheson, 5 Cox, C. C. 276-Gurney. The case of Rex v. Palmer, 2 Leach, C. C. 680; 2 East, P. C. 586, decided that a tenant stealing goods from a ready-furnished house was not guilty of felony, within 3 Will. & M. c. 9, s. 5. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 74," whosoever shall steal any chat"tel or fixture let to be used by "him or her in or with any house "or lodging, whether the contract "shall have been entered into by "him or her or by her husband, or by any person on behalf of him or "her or her husband, shall be "guilty of felony, and, being con"victed thereof, shall be liable, at "the discretion of the court, to be "be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or with- 7. In Manufactories. "out hard labour, and with or with- By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 62, "out solitary confinement, and, if "whosoever shall steal, to the val"a male under the age of sixteen "ue of 10s., any woollen, linen, 66 years, with or without whipping; hempen or cotton yarn, or any "and in case the value of such chat-"goods or article of silk, woollen, "tel or fixture shall exceed the sum "linen, cotton, alpaca or mohair, "of five pounds, shall be liable, at" or of any one or more of those "the discretion of the court, to be "materials mixed with each other, "kept in penal servitude for any " or mixed with any other material, "term not exceeding seven years," whilst laid, placed or exposed, dur"and not less than five years (27"ing any stage, process or progress " & 28 Vict. c. 47), or to be im- "of manufacture, in any building, "prisoned for any term not exceed." field or other place, shall be guilty "ing two years, with or without" of felony, and being convicted "hard labour, and with or without" shall be liable, at the discretion solitary confinement, and, if a" of the court, to be kept in penal "male under the age of sixteen" servitude for any term not exceedyears, with or without whipping; "ing fourteen years, and not less than "And in every case of stealing "five years (27 & 28 Vict. c. 47), or any chattel in this section men- "be imprisoned for any term not "tioned it shall be lawful to prefer exceeding two years, with or withan indictment in the common "out hard labour, and with or with"form as for larceny, and in every" out solitary confinement." (Forcase of stealing any fixture in mer provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, "this section mentioned to prefer s. 16.) "an indictment in the same form as if the offender were not a ten"ant or lodger, and in either case "to lay the property in the owner 66 66 Where, on an indictment on 18 Geo. 2, c. 27, for stealing yarn out of a bleaching-ground, it appeared that the yarn had been spread on |
