Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 Com

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 pass-pany, for stealing a quantity of books in every week to be written canvas and hessen belonging to the up, and their messenger went on company from their warehouses, it the following morning to bring it was sufficient to state the properback, when it was returned, togeth- ty to be "the goods and chattels of er with the cheques, &c., of the pre- the West India Dock Company," ceding week. A. was a salaried and not necessary, notwithstanding clerk in the office of the company, the words of the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. and also a shareholder; it was his lii, s. 133, to allege, in addition, duty to receive the pass-book and that it was feloniously taken from vouchers from the messenger, and the company. Reg. v. Stoke, 8 C. to preserve the vouchers for the use & P. 151-Mirehouse, C. S. 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 book and 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. 193; 4 Cox, C. C. 336.

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 belonged to the banking company, a company 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. 340.

The 1 & 2 Vict. c. 85, was continued by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 111; and a shareholder in a joint stock banking company may be indicted for embezzling or stealing the money of the company, it being laid as the property of a public officer of the company correctly appointed and registered. Reg. v. Atkinson, 2 M. C. C. 278; Car. & M. 525.

[blocks in formation]

Peers and Peeresses.]-In an indictment for larceny of goods, the property of a peer who is a baron, the goods may be laid as the goods and chattels of " G., T. R., Lord D.," without styling him Baron D., although the more proper way to describe the peer is by his christian name, and his degree in the peerage, as duke, earl, baron, or the like. Reg. v. Pitts, 8 C. & P. 771; Erskine; S. P., Reg. v. Caley, 5 Jur. 709-Taddy, Serjt.

An indictment for larceny, laying the goods stolen to be the property of Victory Baroness Turkheim, is good, although her name is Selinda Victoire. Rex v. Sulls, 2 Leach, C. C. 861.

Trustees of Benefit and Friendly Societies.]-An indictment for the larceny of property belonging to

trustees who are not incorporated, must lay the property to be in them by name as individuals, subjoining a description of the character in which they are authorized to act. Rex v. Sherrington, 1 Leach, C. C. 513.

Where a friendly society had appointed a treasurer and two trustees, one of the trustees was held guilty of larceny in stealing the money of the society, the money be ing alleged in the indictment to be the property of the treasurer, and having been taken from his hands with the intention of stealing. Reg. v. Cain, 2 M. C. C. 204; Car. & M. 309.

The goods in a dissenting chapel, vested in trustees, cannot be described in an indictment as the goods of a servant who has merely the custody of the chapel and things in it, to clean and keep in order, although he has the key of the chapel, and no other person but the minister has another key. Rex v. Hutchinson, R. & R. C. C. 412.

A bible had been given to a society of Wesleyans; and it had been bound at the expense of the society. B. stated that he was one of the trustees of the chapel, and also a member of the society. No trust deed was produced :—Held, that, in an indictment for stealing the Bible, the property was rightly laid in B. and others. Rex v. Boulton, 5 C. & P. 537-Parke.

A box belonging to a benefit society was stolen from a room in a public-house. Two of the stewards had keys of this box; and, by the rules of the society, the landlord ought to have had a key, but in fact he had not:-Held, that the prisoner might be convicted on a count laying the property in the landlord alone. Rex v. Wymer, 4 C. & P. 391-Parke.

A. was indicted for stealing money, the property of "F. and others." "F. and others" were trustees of a friendly society; and

A. and H. were members of the society. H. was in possession of a shop where goods were sold for the society, and had the sole management, and was answerable for property and money coming into his possession. A., while assisting in the shop, without salary, took the money from the till. The prosecution failing to prove the society was duly inrolled, the indictment was amended by inserting H.'s name, instead of F. and others." It was then proved, on behalf of A., that the society was inrolled-Held, that a conviction upon the amended indictment might be sustained. Reg. v. Webster, 7 Jur., N. S. 1208; 31 L. J., M. C. 17; 10 W. R. 20; 5 L. T., N. S. 327-C. C. R.

On Death of Parties.]-In an indictment for stealing property which has belonged to a deceased person, who appointed executors, who would not prove the will, the property must be laid in the ordinary, and not in a person who, after the commission of the offence, but before the indictment, has taken out letters of administration with the will annexed; because the rights of an administrator only commence from the date of the letters, as distinguished from those of an executor, which commence, not from the granting of the probate, but from the death of the testator. Rex v. Smith, 7 C. & P. 147—Bolland and Coleridge.

Where two had jointly stock upon a farm, and one died, leaving several children :-Held, that the property in sheep stolen was properly alleged to be in the survivor and the children; the former swearing that he considered himself to hold one moiety for the benefit of the latter. Rex v. Scott, 2 East, P. C. 655; R. & R. C. C. 13.

D. & C. were partners; C. died intestate, leaving a widow and children; from the time of his death the widow acted as partner

[ocr errors]

with D., and attended the business of the shop; three weeks after C.'s death part of the goods was stolen ; they were described in the indictment as the goods of D. and the widow:-Held, that the description was right. Rex v. Gaby, R. & R. C. C. 178.

On an indictment for stealing sheep, which had been stolen after the death of the late owner, there being no formal proof of a will or an administration, but it appearing that the sheep were in charge of the shepherd, under the orders of a steward, who was under the order of the prosecutors, and took directions from and rendered accounts to them :-Held, that there was sufficient evidence of a possession in them, which would sustain the indictment. Reg. v. King, 4 F. & F. 493-Crompton.

A knife was stolen from the pocket of A., as his dead body lay in a road at S., in the diocese of W. The last place of abode of A. was at T., in the diocese of G.; but A.'s father stated that he believed his son had left T. to come to live with him, but did not know whether his son had given up his lodgings at T.:-Held, that this was sufficient proof to support a count for larceny, laying the property in the Lord Bishop of W. Reg. v. Tippin, Car. & M. 545-Patteson.

A. was convicted upon an indictment charging her with stealing numerous articles, laid as the property of the ordinary. The evidence was, that the articles, which belonged to a deceased person, were after her death found in A.'s possession; that search had been made for a will, and none found; and that a small portion only of the articles had been seen in the house of the deceased after her death :-Held, that the property was rightly laid in the ordinary, and that the sessions had done right in leaving the case, as to the whole of the articles, to the jury, and in refusing to put the

prosecutor to an election to proceed

[ocr errors]

66

age of sixteen, with or without only in respect of the taking any " whipping: provided, that no perparticular articles. Reg. v. John-" son, howsoever tried for receiving son, Dears. & B. C. C. 340; 4 Jur., as aforesaid, shall be liable to be N. S. 55; 27 L. J., M. C. 52; 7 Cox," prosecuted a second time for the C. C. 379. "same offence." (Former provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 54.)

66

66

On Conviction of Felons.]-Goods By s. 95, "whosoever shall reof an adjudged felon, stolen from " ceive any chattel, money, valuable his house, in the possession and oc- "security, or other property whatcupation of his wife, may be describ-"soever, the stealing, taking, obed in an indictment for larceny as "taining, converting, or disposing the goods of the Queen. But the whereof is made a misdemeanor house cannot be so described with- "by this act, knowing the same to out office found. Reg. v. White-" have been unlawfully stolen, takhead, 2 M. C. C. 181; S. P., Coombes "en, obtained, converted, or disposv. Queen's Proctor, 16 Jur. 820-"ed of, shall be guilty of a misdePre. C. meanor, and may be indicted and "convicted thereof, whether the "person guilty of the principal mis"demeanor shall or shall not have "been previously convicted thereof, 66 or shall or shall not be amenable By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 91, "to justice; and every such receiv"whosoever shall receive any chat- "er, being convicted thereof, shall tel, money, valuable security, or "be liable, at the discretion of the "other property whatsoever, the "court, to be kept in penal servi"stealing, taking, extorting, obtain-"tude for any term not exceeding "ing, embezzling, or otherwise dis-"

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

86

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

19. Receivers of Stolen Property.

(a) Statutory Provisions.

[ocr errors]

seven 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 with

66

66

posing whereof shall amount to a felony either at common law or by virtue of this act, knowing the same to have been feloniously out hard labour, and with or with"stolen, taken, extorted, obtained, "out solitary confinement, and, if a "embezzled, or disposed of, shall be "male under the age of sixteen "guilty of felony, and may be in- "years, with or without whipping." "dicted and convicted either as an By s. 97,"where the stealing or accessory after the fact or for a "taking of any property whatsoever "substantive felony, and in the lat-" is by this act punishable on sum"ter case, whether the principal mary conviction, either for every "felon shall or shall not have been "offence, or for the first and second previously convicted, or shall or "offence only, or for the first offence "shall not be amenable to justice; "only, any person who shall receive "and every such receiver, howsoev-"any such property, knowing the er convicted, shall be liable, at same to be unlawfully come by, "the discretion of the court, to be "shall, on conviction thereof before "kept in penal servitude for any "a justice of the peace, be liable, "term not exceeding fourteen and "for every first, second, or subse"not less than five years (27 & 28 "quent offence of receiving, to the "Vict. c. 47), or to be imprisoned same forfeiture and punishment to "for any term not exceeding two," which a person guilty of a first, "with or without hard labour, and "second or subsequent offence of "with or without solitary contine-"stealing or taking such property is "ment, and, if a male under the "by this act made liable."

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

(b) Who are Receivers. If a receiver of stolen goods receives them for the mere purpose of concealment, without deriving any profit at all, he is just as much a receiver as if he had purchased them. Rex v. Richardson, 6 C. & P. 335 -Gaselee, Vaughan and Taunton. Without proof of an actual taking into possession, an indictment for receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen cannot be sustained. Reg. v. Hill, 3 New Sess. Cas. 648; 1 Den. C. C. 453; T. & M. 150; 2 C. & K. 978; 13 Jur. 545; 18 L. J., M. C. 199.

W. stole a watch from A.; and while W. and L. were in custody together, W. told L. that he had "planted" the watch under a flag in a soot-cellar of L.'s house. After this L. was discharged, and went to the flag and took up the watch, and sent his wife to pawn it:-Held, that, if L. thus took the watch in consequence of W.'s information, W. telling L. in order that he might use the information by taking the watch, L. was indictable for this as a receiver of stolen goods; but that if this was an act done by L. in opposition to W., or against his will, it might be a question whether it would be a receiving. Reg. v. Wade, 1 C. & K. 739-Pollock.

A prisoner admits having bought an article, which is subsequently found in his house; that is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict of receiving without proof of an actual receipt, or that he had ever been at the house from before the purchase to the time of the charge. Reg. v. Matthews, T. & M. 337; 1 Den. C. C. 596; 14 Jur. 513.

Two men, having stolen some fowls, put them into a sack and carried them into the house of the prisoner's father at about half-past four o'clock in the morning. After remaining in the house about ten minutes, the two men were seen to come out at a back door, one of them carrying the sack, and the

prisoner going before them with a light. The stable-door was closed by one of the party, and when the policeman entered he found the two thieves and the prisoner standing round the sack, which lay on the floor untied, as if bargaining for the fowls :-Held, that this was not a receiving within the statute, the prisoner never having had the goods under his control, and the whole transaction being only inchoate. Reg. v. Wiley, 2 Den. C. C. 37; 4 Cox, C. C. 412; T. & M. 367; 15 Jur. 134; 20 L. J., M. C. 4.

It is not necessary to prove an actual manual possession of stolen goods, in order to sustain an indictment for receiving the goods, but it is sufficient if the goods are shewn to have been under the control of the person charged with receiving. Reg. v. Smith, Dears. C. C. 494; 1 Jur., N. S. 575; 24 L. J., M. C. 135; 6 Cox, C. C. 554.

Stolen goods were found by the owner in the pockets of the thief; a policeman was sent for, who took the goods and subsequently returned them to the thief, and the owner then sent the latter to sell them where he had sold others; he accordingly sold them at the shop of D. D. was tried and convicted of receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen :— Held, that the conviction was wrong, as the facts did not constitute a receiving of stolen goods within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 54. Reg. v. Dolan, Dears. C. C. 436; 3 C. L. R. 295 1 Jur., N. S. 72; 24 L. J., M. C. 59; 6 Cox, C. C. 449.

5;

Á. was indicted for feloniously receiving a watch and a hat. It was proved that a policeman, in consequence of information received from B. (the thief),went to a room in a lodging-house where A. slept, and in a box in that room found the hat. A. admitted that the hat had been brought there by B., but denied all knowledge of the watch. On the following day A. was taken into

« EelmineJätka »