66

(j) Carcases or Skins.

(such person knowing that the "bird, beast, or animal has been By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 11, "stolen, or that the plumage is the "whosoever shall wilfully kill any plumage of a stolen bird, or that "animal, with intent to steal the "the skin is the skin of a stolen" carcase, skin or any part of the "beast, or that the part is a part "animal so killed, shall be guilty of "of a stolen animal), shall, on con- felony, and being convicted there"viction before a justice of the" of shall be liable to the same punpeace, be liable for the first of "ishment as if he had been convict"fence to such forfeiture, and for "ed of feloniously stealing the same, "every subsequent offence to such" provided the offence of stealing "punishment, as any person con"the animal so killed would have "victed of stealing any beast or "amounted to felony." (Former "bird is made liable to by the last provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. "preceding section." 25.)

If pigeons are so far tame that they come home every night to roost in wooden boxes, hung on the outside of the house of their owner, and a party comes in the night and steals them out of these boxes, this is a larceny. Rex v. Brooks, 4 C. & P. 131-Taddy, Serjt.

Ferrets, though tame and saleable, cannot be the subject of larceny. Rex v. Searing, R. & R. C.

C. 350.

Pheasants that have been reared under hens, and have never become wild, may be the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Head, 1 F. & F. 350— Campbell.

So young pheasants hatched by a hen, and under the care of the hen, in a coop, in a field at a distance from a dwelling-house, are the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Corey, 10 Cox, C. C. 23-Channell. S. P., Reg. v. Garnham, 8 Cox, C. C. 451; 2 F. &. F. 347-Pollock.

Partridges about three weeks old and able to fly a little, which had been hatched and reared by a common hen, placed under a hen-coop, and after the removal of the coop remained about the place with the hen as her brood, sleeping under her wings at night, may be the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Shickle, 38 L. J., M. C. 21; 1 L. R., C. C. 158; 17 W. R. 144; 19 L. T., N. S. 327; 11 Cox, C. C.

189.

An indictment for stealing lambs is sustained by proof that the carcases were found in the owner's ground, and only the skins taken away. Rex v. Rawlins, 2 East, P. C. 617.

In Rex v. Williams, 1 M. C. C. 107, where a man was indicted under 14 Geo. 2, c. 6, for killing sheep with intent to steal the whole carcase, proof of killing with intent to steal part of the carcase was sufficient to support the charge.

Cutting off part of a sheep whilst it is alive, with intent to steal such part, will support an indictment for killing with intent to steal part of the carcase, if the cutting off must occasion its death. Rex v. Clay, R. & R. C. C. 387.

On the trial of an indictment for killing a ewe with intent to steal the carcase, it appeared that the prisoner wounded the ewe by cutting her throat, and was then interrupted by the prosecutor, and the ewe died of the wound two days af terwards. It was found by the jury who convicted the prisoner, that he intended to steal the carcase of the ewe; and the judges held the conviction right. Reg. v. Sut ton, 8 C. & P. 291; Reg. v. M'Cul ly, 2 Lewin, C. C. 272; 2 M. C. C.

34.

An indictment charged in the first count, that A. and B. killed a sheep, with intent to steal one of its

hind legs; and in the second count, | 2 East, P. C. 653; 2 Leach, C. C. that C. received nine pounds weight 862. of mutton so stolen as aforesaid; and The goods of a furnished lodging in the third count, that C. received must be described as the lodger's the mutton" of a certain evil-dis- goods, not as the goods of the origposed person," scienter, &c. :-inal owner. Rex v. Belstead, R. & Held, that on this form of indict- R. C. C. 411; Rex v. Brunswick, 1 ment, all the three prisoners might M. C. C. 26. be properly convicted. Rex V. Wheeler, 7 C. & P. 170-Coleridge. Pulling wool from the bodies of live sheep and lambs, animo furandi, is larceny. Rex v. Martin, 1 Leach, C. C. 171; 2 East, P. C. 618. So it is larceny to take the milk from a cow. Ib.

18. The Ownership. General Instances of Allegation and Proof.]-Property cannot be laid in a person who has never had either actual or constructive possession. Rex v. Adams, R. & R. C. C. 225.

The property stolen may be described as the real owner's, although it never was actually in his possession, but in the possession of his agent only. Rex v. Remnant, R. &. R. C. C. 136.

Goods belonging to a guest, stolen at an inn, may be laid to be the property either of the inn-keeper or of the guest. Rex v. Todd, 1 Leach, C. C. 357, n.

So goods stolen from a washerwoman may be laid to be her property. Rex v. Parker, 1 Leach, C. C. 357, n.

So in case of an agister, who takes in sheep to agist for another, they may be laid to be his property. Rex v. Woodward, 1 Leach, C. C.

357

n; 2 East, P. C. 653.

The coach-glass of a gentleman's coach, standing in a coachmaster's yard, may be laid to be the property of the coach-master. Rex v. Taylor, 1 Leach, C. C. 356; 2 East, P. C. 653.

If a corn factor purchases a ship laden with corn, and sends his lighter to fetch it from the ship to his wharf, a delivery of the corn on board the lighter puts it into the possession of the corn-factor, although the lighterman never delivers it at the factor's wharf. Rex v. Spears, 2 Leach, C. C. 825; 2 East, P. C. 568.

If a corn-factor purchases the cargo of a vessel laden with corn, and sends his servant with a lighter to fetch it from the ship in loose bulk, and the servant contrives to have a certain portion of it put into sacks by the meters on board the ship, and takes the corn so sacked feloniously away in the lighter immediately from the ship, he may be indicted for stealing the property of the corn-factor, although it was never put into his lighter, or otherwise reduced into the corn-factor's possession. Rex v. Abrahat, 2 Leach, C. C. 824; 2 East, P. C. 569.

The prisoner was sent by his fellow workmen to their common employer, to get the wages due to all of them. He received the money in a lump sum, wrapped up in paper, with the names of the workmen and the sum due to each written inside:-Held, that he received the money as the agent of his fellow workmen, and not as the servant of the employer, and that, in an indictment against him for stealing it, the money was wrongly described as the property of the employer. Reg. v. Barnes, 1 L. R., C. C. 45; 12 Jur., N. S. 549; 35 L. J., M. C. 204; 14 W. R. 805; 14 L. T., N. S. 601.

The property in goods stolen, is properly alleged to be in the driver of a coach, from the boot of which The wife of A. was employed by they were taken. Rex v. Deakin, | her father to sell sheep, and receive

the amount at K. She did so; but
before she left K. a 57. note, which
she received in payment for the
sheep, was stolen from her :-Held,
that the note was properly describ-
ed as the property of the husband.
Rex v. Roberts, 7 C. & P. 485-ley, 2 C. & K. 283—C. C. R.
Littledale.

dictment in which the property was
stated to be that of " J. N. and oth-
ers,' J. N. being the vicar, was
correct, without alleging J. N. to
be the vicar, or the "others" to be
the churchwardens. Reg. v. Wort-

B. was charged with stealing money, alleged to be the money of A. A. had received the money as the servant of an industrial co-operative society, for goods sold to members of the society, and he was accountable to the treasurer for the monies he received. B. was a member of the society, and had abstracted some money from a till under A.'s charge-Held, that there was a sufficient possession of the money in A. to sustain a conviction for larceny against B. Reg. v. Burgess, L. & C. 299; 9 Cox, C. C. 302; 9 Jur., N. S. 582; 32 L. J., M. C. 185; 11 W. R. 602; 8 L. T., N. S. 255.

An indictment for larceny, and receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen, is bad, if it does not state to whom the goods belonged; and the defect cannot be amended, nor was it cured by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 8. Reg. v. Ward, 7 Cox, C. C. 421.

Iron found in the bed of a canal during the course of cleansing was returned by the canal company to the true owners, if capable of being identified, otherwise it was kept by the canal. company --Held, that in an indictment against a stranger for larceny of such iron, the property was properly laid in the canal company. Reg. v. Rowe, 8 Cox, C. C. 139; 5 Jur., N. S. 274.

:

An indictment for stealing goods may, under 55 Geo. 3, c. 137, state them to be the goods of the overseers of the poor, for the time being, of the parish of A.; for this will import that they belonged, at the time of the theft, to the persons who were the then overseers. v. Went, R. & R. C. C. 359.

Rex

Inhabitants of a County.]-A room attached to a shire-hall, and built and used for the purpose of a ball and concert room, is within 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 5, which provides, that in any indictment for any felony or misdemeanor, committed in, upon, or with respect to any court or other building erected or maintained at the expense of any county, in, on, or with respect to any goods or chattels provided for or at the expense of the county, to be used in or with any such court, it shall be sufficient to state any such property, real or personal, to belong to the inhabitants of such county. Reg. v. Winbow, 5 Cox, C. C. 346.

A chandelier, which had been used as a fixture in the ball-room, and subsequently removed to another part of the building, but not used for any purpose, is also within the same statute, and is properly described as the property of the inhabitants of the county. Ib.

A hall-keeper, appointed by the justices, is not bailee of any of the contents of the shire-hall, but is the servant of the inhabitants, and, if he converts to his own use any of the property committed to his care, he may be indicted for larceny. Ib.

Churchwardens and Overseers.]— Money was stolen from an ancient poor's box fixed up in a church :Held, that, in an indictment for stealing it, the property would be Joint Stock Companies.]-A. was properly laid in the' vicar and convicted on a count which charged churchwardens; and that an in-him with stealing a piece of paper,

If in an indictment for larceny the property of the goods is laid in A., and the property is proved to be in the London Dock Company, this was amendable under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 1. Ib.

In an indictment against a servant of the West India Dock Company, for stealing a quantity of canvas and hessen belonging to the company from their warehouses, it was sufficient to state the property to be "the goods and chattels of the West India Dock Company," and not necessary, notwithstanding the words of the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. lii, s. 133, to allege, in addition, that it was feloniously taken from the company. Reg. v. Stoke, 8 C. & P. 151-Mirehouse, C. S.

the property of G. and others, his | C. C. 464; 16 Jur. 457; 21 L. J., masters. G. and others were di- M. C. 109; 5 Cox, C. C. 537. rectors of an unincorporated insurance company, managed its affairs, appointed, paid, controlled and dismissed the clerks and other servants, and had the charge and custody of all the books and papers of the company. The company had a drawing account with G. & Co., and used to send their passbooks in every week to be written up, and their messenger went on the following morning to bring it back, when it was returned, together with the cheques, &c., of the preceding week. A. was a salaried clerk in the office of the company, and also a shareholder; it was his duty to receive the pass-book and vouchers from the messenger, and to preserve the vouchers for the use of the company. G. & Co. delivered the pass-book, containing among other things a cashed cheque for 1,4007. to the messenger of the company, who delivered the booked to the banking company, a comand cheque to A. in the usual way, and he thereupon fraudulently destroyed it :-Held, that the cheque was the property of the directors, and that A., though a shareholder in the company, had not a joint property in it, and was properly convicted of larceny. Reg. v. Watts, 2 Den. C. C. 14; T. & M. 342; 14 Jur. 870; 19 L. J., M. C. 4 Cox, C. C. 336.

193;

The London Dock Company by mistake delivered two hogsheads of sugar to a carrier, who produced two delivery notes authorizing them to deliver two other hogsheads of sugar, the property of B. The carrier broke bulk, and was indicted for larceny :-Held, that the property was well described as the property of the London Dock Company, they having still a special property in the chattels, notwithstanding that they parted with the possession by mistake. Reg. v. Vincent, 3 C. & K. 246; 2 Den.

In an indictment for larceny, the property was laid to be in G., manager of the Dudley and West Bromwich Bank. The property belong

pany consisting of more than twenty partners, but no registration of it, or appointment of any manager or public officer, was proved. The indictment was amended by laying the property in W. and others, W. being one of the partners :-Held, that the ownership, as amended, was rightly laid under 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 14, and that it need not have been laid in the public officer (presuming there was one), under 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, s. 9. Reg. v. Pritchard, 8 Cox, C. C. 461; L. & C. 34; 7 Jur., N. S. 557; 30 L. J., M. C. 169; 9 W. R. 579; 4 L. T., N. S.