M'Athey, L. & C. 250; 9 Cox C. tween the two occasions. Reg. v. Lonsdale, 4 F. & F. 56-Pollock. A. was tried upon an indictment which contained two counts, the first for embezzlement, and the sec 20. Indictment for Stealing and Re- ond for larceny as a bailee. At the 66 ceiving. Several Counts.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 5, "it shall be lawful "to insert several counts in the same indictment against the same 66 person for any number of distinct acts of stealing not exceeding three, which may have been com"mitted by him against the same "person within the space of six "months from the first to the last "of such acts, and to proceed thereon for all or any of them." (Similar to 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 16.) 66 66 66 close of the case for the prosecution, it was objected that the indictment was bad for misjoinder of counts, and that the counsel for the prosecution could not be allowed to elect upon which count he would proceed. The objection was overruled. The counsel for the prosecution elected to proceed upon the second count, and A. was convicted :— Held, the conviction was right. Reg. v. Holman, 9 Cox, C. C. 201; L. & C. C. C. 177; 8 Jur., N. S. 1082; 10 W. R. 718; 6 L. T., N. S. 474. possession of two horses in that county, which they had jointly taken at different times and places in county B. :-Held, that as each taking in county B. was a separate felony, the prosecutor's counsel must elect on which to proceed. Rex v. Smith, R. & M. 295-Littledale. Before this Enactment. ]-Two Election of Larcenies charged.]-persons indicted for horse-stealing By s. 6, "if upon the trial of any in county A., were found in joint "indictment for larceny it shall appear that the property alleged in "such indictment to have been stolen at one time was taken at "different times, the prosecutor "shall not by reason thereof be re'quired to elect upon which taking he will proceed, unless it shall 66 appear that there were more than "three takings, or that more than "the space of six months elapsed "between the first and the last of "such takings; and in either of such "last-mentioned cases the prosecut"or shall be required to elect to proceed for such number of tak"ings, not exceeding three, as appear to have taken place within "the period of six months from the "first to the last of such takings." (Similar to former provision, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 17.) 66 On an indictment for stealing fowls, in a first count laid on the 15th of February, for stealing ten fowls, and in the third count laid on the 13th of February in the same year, for stealing three fowls, the prosecutor was put to elect be Form of Allegations.]—An indictment charged that A. on &c., being the servant of K., on the same day, &c., one gold ring, &c., then and there being his goods and chattels, feloniously did steal:-Held, that the fair import of the charge was, that A. was the servant of K. at the time when the theft was committed. Rex v. Somerton, 7 B. & C. 463. An indictment charged that the prisoner, whilst a servant of A., stole the money of A. The prisoner was not the servant of A., but the servant of B., and the money which he stole was the money of B., but in the possession of A. as the agent of B.:-Held, that the allegation as to the prisoner being servant might be rejected as surplusage, and the pris-1 oner convicted of simple larceny, the money being properly alleged to belong to A., who had a special property therein. Reg. v. Jennings, Dears. & B. C. C. 447; 4 Jur., N. S. 146; 7 Cox, C. C. 397. as If goods are laid in an indictment "the property of A. W. G. esq.," the addition is not material, and if he is not an esquire, it is no ground for an acquittal. Rex v. Ogilvie, 2 C. & P. 230-Burrough. Description of Instrument.]-By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 5, "in any "indictment for stealing, destroying, "or concealing any instrument, it "shall be sufficient to describe such "instrument by any name or desig"nation by which the same may be "usually known, or by the purport "thereof, without setting out any copy, or fac simile thereof, or "otherwise describing the same or "the value thereof. 66 Coin and Bank Notes.]-By 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 18, 66 in every in"dictment in which it shall be necessary to make any averment as to any money, or any note to the "Bank of England, or any other "bank, it shall be sufficient to de"scribe such money or bank-note "simply as money, without specify"ing any particular coin or bank 66 66 66 An indictment, charging a stealing of one or more specific thing or things, is not supported, except by proof of some one or more of the specific things so charged. Reg. v. Bond, 1 Den. C. C. 517; T. & M. 242; 4 New Sess. Cas. 143; 14 Jur. 399; 19 L. J., M. C. 138. Therfore, an indictment charging a stealing of 70 pieces of the current coin of the realm, called sovereigns, of the value of 707., 140 pieces, called half-sovereigns, 500 not supported by proof of a stealing pieces, &c., called crowns, &c., is of a sum of money consisting of some or other of the coins mentioned in the indictment, without proof of some or one or more of the specific coins there charged to have been stolen. Ib. In an indictment for larceny, two shillings stolen were described as coin of the realm, called shillings, "two pieces of the current silver of the value of two shillings, of the goods and chattels of S. F." the words "goods and chattels" may be rejected as surplusage, and the indictment is good. Reg. v. Radley, 3 New Sess. Cas. 651; T. & M. 144; 1 Den. C. C. 450; 2 C. & K. 974; 13 Jur. 544; 18 L. J., M. C. 184; 3 Cox, C. C. 460. Before this Enactment.]-An indictment for stealing 107. in monies numbered was not sufficient; some of the pieces of which that money consisted should be specified. v. Fry, R. & R. C. C. 482. Rex note; and such allegation, so far as regards the description of the property, shall be sustained by "proof of any amount of coin, or of any bank-note, although the par"ticular species of coin of which "such amount was composed, or "the particular nature of the bank-out, the court could not take judinote, shall not be proved." Bank notes are properly described in an indictment for larceny within this enactment as money, although at the time when they were stolen they were not in circulation, but were in the hands of the bankers themselves. Reg. v. West, Dears. & B. C. C. 109; 2 Jur., N. S. 1123; 26 L. J., M. C. 6; 7 Cox, C. C. 183. If the thing stolen was described as a bank post-bill, and was not set cial notice that it was a promissory note, or that it was such an instrument as under 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, might be the subject of larceny, although it was described as made for the payment of money. Rex v. Chard, R. & R. C. C. 488. Where an indictment described a bank-note as signed by A. H. for the Governor and Company of the Bank of England, and a prisoner | and it is no objection, that it may was convicted; such conviction was bad, there being no evidence of A. H.'s signature. Rex v. Craven, R. & R. C. C. 14; 2 East, P. C. 601. | Dollars or Portugal money, not current by proclamation, were not goods within 24 Geo. 2, c. 45. Rex v. Leigh, 1 Leach, C. C. 52; S. P., Rex v. Grimes, 2 East, P. C. 646. Cheques.]-The servant of a drawer of a cheque on bankers, to whom it is given to deliver to a third person, appropriating the value to his own use, may be charged in an indictment for stealing a valuable security, to wit, a cheque of the value specified, without stating the drawees to be bankers. Reg. v. Heath, 2 M. C. C. 33. Articles of Trade or Merchandise.] -A set of new handkerchiefs in a piece may be described as so many handkerchiefs, though they are not separated one from another, if the pattern designates each, and they are described in the trade as so many handkerchiefs. Rex v. Nibbs, 1 M. C. C. 25. In an indictment for receiving stolen tin, ingots of tin are properly described as so many pounds weight of tin. Reg. v. Mansfield, Car. & M. 140; 5 Jur. 661-Coleridge. So it would be proper to describe a bar of iron as so many pounds of iron. Ib. An indictment for stealing" three eggs of the value of twopence, of the goods and chattels of S. H.," is bad, for not stating the species of eggs, because it does not shew that the eggs stolen might not be such as are not the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Cox, 1 C. & K. 494-Tindal. be taken to mean the ham of an animal feræ naturæ or of a base nature, inasmuch as the flesh of a dead animal feræ naturæ is the subject of larceny, and the expenditure of labour on the flesh or the skin of animals of a base nature, at common law, imparts to its value, and makes it also the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Gallears, 3 New Sess. Cas. 704; 1 Den. C. C. 501; 2 C. & K. 981; T. & M. 196; 13 Jur. 1010; 19 L. J., M. C. 13. Animals.]-In cases of larceny of animals feræ naturæ, the indictment must shew that they were either dead, tame, or confined, otherwise they must be presumed to be in their original state. Rex v. Rough, 2 East, P. C. 607. And see Rex v. Hudson, 2 East, P. C. 611. And it is not sufficient to add, "of the goods and chattels " of such an one. Rex v. Rough, 2 East, P. C. 607. An indictment for stealing a dead animal should state that it was dead; for upon a general statement that a party stole the animal, it is to be intended that he stole it alive. Rex v. Edwards, R. & R. C. C. 497-Holroyd. Upon an indictment for stealing a live animal, evidence cannot be given of stealing a dead one. Ib. But in Rex v. Puckering, 1 M. C. C. 242, A. was indicted for receiving a lamb; when he received the lamb it was dead, and it was held that the indictment was sufficient, it being immaterial, as to the prisoner's offence, whether the lamb was alive or dead, his offence, and the punishment for it, being in both cases the same. This case appears to overrule Rex v. Edwards, R. & R. C. C. 497. An indictment for stealing four live tame turkeys was laid in the county of H.; it appeared that the prisoner stole them alive in the county of C. and killed them there, and then brought them into the "er of stealing the property or of county of H.-Held, that as the "receiving the same, or any part prisoner had not the turkeys in a" or parts thereof, knowing the live state in the county of II., the "same to have been stolen, or to charge as laid was not proved, and "find one or more of the said perthat the word "live" in the de-" sons guilty of stealing the properscription could not be rejected as "ty, and the other or others of them surplusage, and therefore that the "guilty of receiving the same or any indictment was bad. Rex v. Hallo-"part or parts thereof knowing the way, 1 C. & P. 128-Hullock. same to have been stolen." (Former provisions, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 46, s. 3; 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 14.) An indictment charged the prisoner with having feloniously stolen four tame pigeons:-Held, that the 66 66 By s. 93, whenever any proper"ty whatsoever shall have been "stolen, taken, extorted, obtained, "embezzled or otherwise disposed word " tame sufficiently shewed that they were reclaimed, and that such tame and reclaimed pigeons are the subjects of larceny, notwith-"of in such a manner as to amount standing that they have the means of ingress and egress at pleasure. Reg.v. Cheafor, 2 Den. C. C. 361 ; 66 'to a felony, either at common law or by virtue of this act, any num"ber of receivers at different times T. & M. 621; 15 Jur. 1065; 21 L." of such property, or of any part J., M. C. 43; 5 Cox, C. C. 367. (b) Stealing and Receiving. 66 or parts thereof, may be charged "with substantive felonies in the 66 same indictment, and may be By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 92, "in" tried together, notwithstanding 66 66 66 of feloniously stealing any prop erty, it shall be lawful to add a that the principal felon shall not "be included in the same indictment, or shall not be in custody 66 count or several counts for felon-"or amenable to justice." (Former 'iously receiving the same or any provision, 14 & 15 Vict., c. 100 s. "part or parts thereof, knowing the 15.) "same to have been stolen, and in any indictment for feloniously re"ceiving any property knowing it "to have been stolen, it shall be "lawful to add a count for felon "iously stealing the same;" Where a count for feloniously receiving property knowing it to be stolen is joined with a count for feloniously stealing, it must appear with sufficient certainty that the property is the same in each count. Reg. v. Sarsfield, 6 Cox, C. C. 12. In indictments under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 46, s. 3, there may be as many counts charging a felonious receiving as there are counts charging stealing; and the prosecutor cannot be put to his election on what count or counts he will proceed. Reg. v. Beeton, 1 Den. C. C. 414; T. & M. 87; 2 C. & K. 960; 4 New Sess. Cas. 60; 13 Jur. 394; 18 L. J., M. C. 117; 3 Cox, C. C. 451. Where a person is charged in two counts with stealing and receiving, the jury may return a verdict of guilty on the latter count, if warranted by the evidence, although Bank of England, and a prisoner was convicted; such conviction was bad, there being no evidence of A. H.'s signature. Rex v. Craven, R. & R. Č. C. 14; 2 East, P. C. 601. Dollars or Portugal money, not current by proclamation, were not goods within 24 Geo. 2, c. 45. Rex v. Leigh, 1 Leach, C. C. 52; S. P., Rex v. Grimes, 2 East, P. C. 646. Cheques.]-The servant of a drawer of a cheque on bankers, to whom it is given to deliver to a third person, appropriating the value to his own use, may be charged in an indictment for stealing a valuable security, to wit, a cheque of the value specified, without stating the drawees to be bankers. Reg. v. Heath, 2 M. C. C. 33. Articles of Trade or Merchandise.] -A set of new handkerchiefs in a piece may be described as so many" handkerchiefs, though they are not separated one from another, if the pattern designates each, and they are described in the trade as so many handkerchiefs. Rex v. Nibbs, 1 M. C. C. 25. In an indictment for receiving stolen tin, ingots of tin are properly described as so many pounds weight of tin. Reg. v. Mansfield, Car. & M. 140; 5 Jur. 661-Coleridge. So it would be proper to describe a bar of iron as so many pounds of iron. Ib. An indictment for stealing" three eggs of the value of twopence, of the goods and chattels of S. H.," is bad, for not stating the species of eggs, because it does not shew that the eggs stolen might not be such as are not the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Cox, 1 C. & K. 494-Tindal. and it is no objection, that it may be taken to mean the ham of an animal feræ naturæ or of a base nature, inasmuch as the flesh of a dead animal feræ naturæ is the subject of larceny, and the expenditure of la bour on the flesh or the skin of animals of a base nature, at common law, imparts to its value, and makes it also the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Gallears, 3 New Sess. Cas. 704; 1 Den. C. C. 501; 2 C. & K. 981; T. & M. 196; 13 Jur. 1010; 19 L. J., M. C. 13. Animals.]-In cases of larceny of animals feræ naturæ, the indictment must shew that they were either dead, tame, or confined, otherwise they must be presumed to be in their original state. Rex v. Rough, 2 East, P. C. 607. And see Rez v. Hudson, 2 East, P. C. 611. And it is not sufficient to add, of the goods and chattels " of such an one. Rex v. Rough, 2 East, P. C. 607. An indictment for stealing a dead animal should state that it was dead; for upon a general statement that a party stole the animal, it is to be intended that he stole it alive. Rex v. Edwards, R. & R. C. C. 497-Holroyd. Upon an indictment for stealing a live animal, evidence cannot be given of stealing a dead one. Ib. But in Rex v. Puckering, 1 M. C. C. 242, A. was indicted for receiv ing a lamb; when he received the lamb it was dead, and it was held that the indictment was sufficient, it being immaterial, as to the pris oner's offence, whether the lamb was alive or dead, his offence, and the punishment for it, being in both cases the same. This case appears to overrule Rex v. Edwards, R. & R. C. C. 497. An indictment for stealing four live tame turkeys was laid in the county of H.; it appeared that the prisoner stole them alive in the county of C. and killed them there, |