C. C. 160.

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 said the letter and order were not for him, but was advised by W. D. to keep them and get the money. Both prisoners then went to the post-office, obtained the money, and appropriated it to their own use:Held, that a conviction for larceny of the order could not be supported. Reg. v. Davis, 2 Jur., N. S. 478; 25 L. J., M. C. 91; Dears. C. C. 640.

A person who had surreptitiously taken a printed document from a government office, and sent it to a newspaper office to be published, being indicted for larceny:-Held, that the question for the jury was whether he had the object and intention of depriving the government permanently of the property in the paper. Reg. v. Guernsey, 1 F. & F. 394-Martin.

66

16. Fixtures.

By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 31, "whosoever shall steal, or shall rip, "cut, sever or break with intent to "steal, any glass or wood work belonging to any building whatsoever, or any lead, iron, copper, "brass or other metal, or any utensil "or fixture, whether made of metal "or other material or of both, re"spectively fixed in or to any build"ing whatsoever, or anything made "of metal fixed in any land being

to allege the same to be the prop"erty of any person." (Former provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 44.)

By 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27, 4 Geo. 2, c. 32, and 21 Geo. 3, c. 68, were repealed.

The prisoners were convicted upon an indictment which charged them with stealing lead fixed to a certain wharf. It was proved that the lead stolen formed the gutters of two brick, timber and tile built sheds erected upon the prosecutor's wharf:-Held, that the conviction was good, the lead being fixed to a building within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 44. Reg. v. Rice, Bell, C. C. 87; 5 Jur., N. S. 273; 28 L. J., M. C. 64; 7 W. R. 232; 32 L. T. 323 ; 8 Cox, C. C. 119.

The prisoners were convicted upon an indictment framed under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 44, of stealing metal fixed in land. It was proved that they had stolen a copper sundial fixed upon a wooden post in a churchyard:--Held, that the conviction was right. Reg. v. Jones, Dears. & B. C. C. 555; 4 Jur., N. S. 394; 27 L. J., M. C. 171.

A person, on a count (in the usual form) for stealing lead affixed to a building, cannot be convicted of larceny; and in order to warrant a conviction on such count, the jury must be satisfied that he unfixed the lead from the building, or was present aiding and assisting. Reg. v. Gooch, 8 C & P. 293—Tindal.

An unfinished building, intended as a cart-shed, which is boarded up on all its sides, and has a door with a

ed by and delivered to the buyer, it is not felony though he immediately rides away with it without paying the purchase-money. Rex v. Harvey, 1 Leach, C. C. 467; 2 East, P. C. 669.

But obtaining a horse under the pretext of hiring it for a day, and immediately selling it, is felony, if the jury finds the hiring was animo furandi. Rex v. Pear, 1 Leach, C. C. 212; 2 East, P. C. 685, 697. And see Rex v. Tunnard, 2 East, P. C. 687; 1 Leach, C. C. 214, n.

If a thief goes to an inn, and, intending to steal a horse, directs the ostler to bring out his horse, pointing to that of the prosecutor, and the ostler, at his desire, leads out the horse for the prisoner to mount: this is a sufficient taking by the prisoner to support an indictment for horse-stealing. Rex v. Pitman, 2 C. & P. 423-Garrow.

Where the prisoners having entered a stable at night, and taking out horses, rode them thirty-two miles, and then left them at an inn, and were afterwards found pursuing their journey on foot; and the jury found that they took the horses merely with intent to ride and afterwards to leave them and not to return or make any further use of them :--Held, that this was a trespass and not a larceny. Rex v. Phillips, 2 East, P. C. 662.

changed the saddles, and, without giving any money, rode away with the mare, leaving the servant with a horse of little value. Four days after the prisoner sold the mare at B., stating that he had got her in a chop at M. fair :--Held, that, as the servant had the mere charge of the mare, and had no right to deal with the property in her, the prisoner ought to be convicted of stealing her, providing that the jury was satisfied that the prisoner was in league with the two other men, and that the three, by a fraud in which each of them was to take his part and did take his part, induced the servant to part with possession of the mare under colour of exchange, but they intended all the while to steal the mare. Reg. v. Sheppard, 9 C. & P. 121--Coleridge.

If a person stealing other property takes a horse, not with the intent to steal it, but only to get off more conveniently with the other property which he has stolen, such taking of the horse is not a felony. Rex v. Crump, 1 C. & P. 658-Garrow.

Indictment.]-In an indictment for horse-stealing, the animal, whether a horse, mare, gelding, colt or filly, may be described as a horse. Reg. v. Aldridge, 4 Cox, C. C. 143-Erle.

Foals and fillies were within 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 33, and were included in the words horse, gelding or mare, and evidence of stealing a mare filly supported an indictment for stealing a mare. Rex v. Welland, R. & R. C. C. 494.

teen years. An indictment charged a person with feloniously stealing a mare, saddle and bridle, and did not conclude contra formam statuti. A verdict of guilty was found :-Held, that, as stealing the mare, as well as stealing the saddle and bridle, was a felony at common law, and not created or altered in its nature by statute, the offence was correctly described in the indictment, and the statutable punishment of fifteen years' transportation would attach to the stealing the mare. Williams v. Reg. (in error), 7 Q. B.

251.

Evidence.]-Two, indicted for horse-stealing in county A., were found in joint possession of two horses in that county, which they had jointly taken at different times and places in county B. :--Held, that evidence could be given of one only of the takings in county B., each taking being a separate felony. Rex v. Smith, R. & M. 295--Littledale.

Indictment for stealing two horses in Kent; the only evidence of stealing in Kent was that the constable having taken the prisoner in Surrey, and the prisoner having offered on some pretence to go to a place in Kent, the constable and the prisoner rode the horses there, and the prisoner escaped, leaving the horses with the constable :-Held, not sufficient. Rex v. Simmonds, 1 M. C. C. 408.

A. had agisted his horse with B., and in consequence of hearing of the loss of it, A. went to the field of B., where it was not :-Held, to be not sufficient proof of loss to support an indictment for horse-stealing. Rex v. Yend, 6 C. & P. 176— Gurney.

(c) Cattle.

An indictment for stealing a cow cannot be supported by evidence of stealing a heifer. Rex v. Cook, 1 FISH. DIG.--21.

The beast, however old, is a heifer until she has had a calf. Ib.

The phrase bullock-stealing, in 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 28, relating to the allowance of rewards in certain cases for the discovery of offenders, includes all cases of cattle-stealing of that particular description, e. g. ox, cow, heifer, &c. Rex v. Gillbrass, 7 C. & P. 445.

(d) Sheep-Stealing.

An indictment for stealing a sheep is supported by proof of stealing a ewe or a ram, though the statute specifies "ram, ewe, sheep or lamb." Reg. v. M' Culley, 2 M. C. C. 34; 2 Lewin, C. C. 272.

A sheep was called in the indictment a ewe, and, by the witnesses, the proper name was said to be a ewe teg:-Held, that the description was bad. Reg. v. Jewett, 2 Cox, C. C. 227-Pollock.

66

On the trial of an indictment under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 25, for stealing one sheep," some of the witnesses stated the animal to be a sheep, others a lamb. It was between nine and twelve months old; and the jury who convicted the prisoner found, that, in common parlance, according to the usual mode of describing such animals, it would be called a lamb. Conviction held right, the word "sheep" being general. Reg. v. Spicer, 1 ̊C. & K. 699; 1 Den. C. C. 82.

On an indictment for sheep-stealing, a rig sheep is properly described as one sheep." Rex v. Stroud, 6 C. & P. 535-Alderson.

A prisoner was indicted for sheepstealing. The prosecutor lost a sheep in September; it was found in the prisoner's possession in the March following. There was no other evidence of larceny than the possession:-Held, that the period between the loss and the finding was too long to permit the case to go to the jury. Reg. v. Harris, 8 Cox, C. C. 333.