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 H., 66 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-66 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 By s. 93," whenever any properword "tame" sufficiently shewed "ty whatsoever shall have been that they were reclaimed, and that "stolen, taken, extorted, obtained, such tame and reclaimed pigeons "embezzled or otherwise disposed are the subjects of larceny, notwith-" of in such a manner as to amount standing that they have the means "to a felony, either at common law of ingress and egress at pleasure. or by virtue of this act, any numReg. v. Cheafor, 2 Den. C. C. 361;"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. or parts thereof, may be charged "with substantive felonies in the same indictment, and may be tried together, notwithstanding that the principal felon shall not "be included in the same indict"ment, or shall not be in custody " or amenable to justice." (Former provision, 14 & 15 Vict., c. 100 s. 15.) By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 92, "in" any indictment containing a charge "of feloniously stealing any property, it shall be lawful to add a count or several counts for felon"iously receiving the same or any part or parts thereof, knowing the same to have been stolen, and in any indictment for feloniously receiving 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. "And if such indictment shall "have been preferred and found Where a person is charged in two against two or more persons, it counts with stealing and receiving, "shall be lawful for the jury who the jury may return a verdict of "shall try the same to find all or guilty on the latter count, if warany of the said persons guilty eith-ranted by the evidence, although 66 Rex v. Kernon, the evidence is also consistent with offence, correctly. 2 Russ. C. & M. 562-Bayley. A count for stealing articles may not be joined with a count for receiving those and other articles, knowing them to have been stolen. Reg. v. Ward, 2 F. & F. 19--Willes. A first count charged the prisoner with stealing certain goods and chattels, and a second count charg. ed him with receiving "the goods and chattels aforesaid, of the value aforesaid, so as aforesaid stolen." After objection that he could not be found to have feloniously received goods stolen by himself the case went to the jury, and he was acquitted upon the first count and convicted upon the second :-Held, that the conviction was good. Reg. v. Huntley, Bell, C. C. 238; 8 Cox, C. C. 260; 6 Jur., N. S. 80; 29 L. J., M. C. 170; 8 W. R. 183; 1 L. T., N. S. 384. A count for receiving stolen goods in a different county from that in which the trial takes place, coupled with other counts for the larceny, under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 46, must, by distinct and express averments, shew upon the face of it jurisdiction within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 56. Reg. v. Martin, 3 New Sess. Cas. 575; T. & M. 78; 1 Den. C. C. 398; 2 C. & K. 950; 13 Jur. 368; 18 L. J., M. C. 137. A receiver may be indicted for receiving goods stolen by persons unknown. Rex v. Thomas, 2 East, P. C. 781; S. P., Rex v. Baxter, 2 East, P. C. 781; 5 T. R. 83; 2 Leach, C. C. 578. A receiver, in the case of a sheep feloniously stolen alive and killed, should be stated to have received mutton. Rex v. Cowell, 2 East, P. C. 617. An indictment against a receiver of stolen goods must aver the guilty knowledge, which is the gist of the A count for a substantive felony in receiving stolen goods, which charged that the goods were stolen by "a certain evil-disposed person," is good. Rex v. Jervis, 6 C. & P. 156-Tindal. To bring a case of receiving within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 55, the indictment must allege the goods to have been obtained by false pretences and known to have been so. It is not enough to allege them to have been "unlawfully obtained, taken and carried away." Reg. v. Wilson, 2 M. C. C. 52. An indictment for receiving stolen goods alleged that the prisoner received the goods of A., "he, the said A., then knowing them to have been stolen." After a verdict of guilty, the counsel moved an arrest of judgment, on the ground that the scienter was omitted; but the quarter sessions amended the indictment by striking out "A.," and substituting the name of the prisoner:-Held, first, that it was bad as originally framed. Reg. v. Larkin, Dears. C. C. 365; 2°C. L. R. 775; 18 Jur. 539; 23 L. J., M. C. 125. Held, secondly, that the objection was taken at the proper time. Ib. Held, thirdly, that the indictment was not amendable after verdict. Ib. On an indictment for stealing and receiving a mixture, it appeared that the thief had stolen two sorts of grain, and mixed them and sold them to the prisoner :--Held, that the latter could not be convicted on such indictment. Reg. v. Robinson, 4 F. & F. 43-Pollock. Where a prisoner was indicted for stealing goods, and in a subsequent count for receiving the goods, "so as aforesaid feloniously stolen," and the jury acquitted of the stealing and convicted of the receiving, the conviction was affirmed upon a case reserved upon a motion in arrest of judgment. Reg. v. Craddock, T. & "attempted to commit larceny from M. 361; 2 Den. C. C. 31; 14 Jur." the person, or simple larceny." 1031; 20 L. J., M. C. 31; 4 Cox, C. C. 409. Where the receiving is so laid, the judge should direct the jury to acquit upon the count for receiving, if they should not find the prisoner guilty of stealing. Ib. 66 66 21. Jurisdiction to try. Stealing.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 114, "if any person shall have in "his possession in any one part of the "United Kingdom any chattel, mon66 ey, valuable security or other property whatsoever, which he shall "have stolen or otherwise felonious"ly taken in any other part of the "United Kingdom, he may be dealt "with, indicted, tried and punished "for larceny or theft in that part of "the United Kingdom where he "shall so have such property, in the same manner as if he had actually "stolen or taken it in that part; and "if any person in any one part of the "United Kingdom shall receive or "have any chattel, money, valuable security or other property whatsoever which shall have been stolen or "otherwise feloniously taken in any "other part of the United Kingdom, "such person knowing such property to have been stolen or otherwise feloniously taken, he may be dealt "with, indicted, tried and punished "for such offence in that part of the "United Kingdom where he shall "so receive or have such property, "in the same manner as if it had "been originally stolen or taken in "that part." (Former provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 76.) 66 66 66 By 18 & 19 Vict. c. 126, "just"ices at petty sessions may try and convict in a summary way persons charged with having com"mitted simple larceny, where the "value of the whole of the property alleged to have been stolen does not, in the judgment of the just"ices, exceed 5s., or with having 66 Larceny must be tried in the county where committed; but the offence is considered as committed in every county into which the thief carries the goods. Rex v. Thompson, 2 Russ. C. & M. 328. If a man steals goods in one county, and carries them into another, it will be larceny in the latter, though the goods are not carried into the latter county until long after the original theft. Rex v. Parkin, 1 M. C. C. 45. If a parish is partly situate in the county of W., and partly in the county of S., it is sufficient, in an indictment for larceny, to state the offence to have been committed at the parish of H., in the county of W. Rex v. Perkins, 4 C. & P. 363 -Park. The court of quarter sessions has jurisdiction to try cases of larceny committed on the high seas where the offender is apprehended within the jurisdiction of such court. Reg. v. Peel, L. & C. C. C. 231; 9 Cox, C. C. 220; 32 L. J., M. C. 65; 8 Jur., N. S. 1185; 11 W. R. 40; 7 L. T., N. S. 336. The prisoner stole a watch at Liverpool, and sent it by railway to a confederate in London :-Held, that the constructive possession still remained in the prisoner, and that he was triable at the Middlesex sessions. Reg. v. Rogers, 1 L. R. C. C. 136; 18 L. T., N. S. 414; 16 W. R. 733; 37 L. J., M. C. 83; 11 Cox, C. C. 38. A person had stolen goods in Guernsey and brought them to England, where he was taken and committed for trial:-Held, that, Guernsey not being a part of the United Kingdom, he could not be convicted of larceny, for having them in his possession here, nor of receiving in England the goods so stolen in Guernsey. Reg. v. Debruiel, 11 Cox, C. C. 207--Byles. 66 66 66 Receiving.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. "the Admiralty of England or Ire96, s. 96,"whosoever shall receive "land shall be deemed to be offences any chattel, money, valuable se- of the same nature, and liable to curity or other property whatso-"the same punishments, as if they ever, knowing the same to have "had been committed upon the land "been feloniously or unlawfully "in England or Ireland, and may "stolen, taken, obtained, converted "be dealt with, inquired of, tried or disposed of, may, whether" and determined in any county or "charged as an accessory after the "place in which the offender shall "fact to the felony, or with a sub-" be apprehended or be in custody; "stantive felony, or with a misde-" and in any indictment for any such meanor only, be dealt with, in- " offence, or for being an accessory "dicted, tried and punished in any "to any such offence, the venue in county or place, in which he shall "the margin shall be the same as if "have or shall have had any such "the offence had been committed in property in his possession, or in "such county or place, and the of any county or place in which the "fence itself shall be averred to have "party guilty of the principal fel-"been committed on the high seas': ony or misdemeanor may by law" provided, that nothing herein con"be tried, in the same manner as tained shall alter or affect any of "such receiver may be dealt with," the laws relating to the govern"indicted, tried and punished in the "ment of her Majesty's land or nacounty or place where he actually "val forces." "received such property." (Former enactment, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 56.) 66 The half of a bank note, which had been stolen during its transit through the post-office from S. in Wiltshire to Bristol, was afterwards inclosed by the prisoner in a letter addressed to the bankers at S., requesting payment of it. This letter was posted by the prisoner at Bath, and arrived with its contents in due course at S. There was no other evidence of any receipt or possession by the prisoner in Wiltshire :Held, upon an indictment for receiving the stolen half note, that he was rightly tried in Wiltshire, as the possession of the post-office servants, or of the bankers in Wiltshire, was his possession, and the case therefore was within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 56. Reg. v. Cryer, Dears. & B. C. C. 324; 3 Jur., Ñ. S. 698; 26 L. J., M. C. 192. Within Admiralty Jurisdiction.] -By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 115, "all indictable offences mentioned "in the act which shall be com"mitted within the jurisdiction of 66 22. Evidence. Stealing.]--A statement made by a prisoner before suspicion attaches to him, and before search made, in order to account for his possession of property, which he is afterwards charged with having stolen, is admissible as evidence for him. Reg. v. Abraham, 2 C. & K. 550--Alderson. Where a prisoner charged with larceny has given two different accounts of the way in which he became possessed of the stolen property, it is not incumbent on the prosecutor to call as witnesses persons whom, in one of the statements, he says could prove his innocence, with a view of disproving that statement, but it may be prudent in the prosecutor to have these persons in attendance at the trial, though he does not call them, to avoid the ef fect of the observations by the prisoner or his counsel that these persons could prove the prisoner's innocence, but that he has not the means of procuring their attendance. Reg. v. Dibley, 2 C. & K. 818-Platt. Neither upon an indictment for stealing nor receiving can evidence be given that the prisoner had at the time, or previously, other stolen goods in his possession. Reg. v. Oddy, T. & M. 593; 2 Den. C. C. 264; 20 L. J., M. C. 108; 5 Cox, C. C. 210. Where a person stole two pigs belonging to the same person at the same time, and after being convicted and punished for stealing one of the pigs, was indicted at a subsequent assize for stealing the other: Held, that this might legally be done; but semble, that, in such a case, the second prosecution ought not to be proceeded with. Reg. v. Brettell, Car. & M. 609--Cresswell. A prisoner was indicted for stealing three articles. Having taken the first article, he returned in about two minutes, and took the second, and then returned in half an hour and took the third :-Held, that the last taking was a distinct felony, and could not be given in evidence with the other two; but, that the interval of time between the first and second taking was so short, that they must be considered as parts of the same transaction. Rex v. Birdseye, 4 C. & P. 386-Littledale. A. went to the shop of B., and asked for shawls for Mrs. D. to look at; B. gave her five, she pawned two, and three were found at her lodgings. Mrs. D. was not called as a witness-Held, that A. could not be convicted of a larceny in stealing the goods of B. Rex v. Savage, 5 C. & P. 143-Patteson. W. was indicted for larceny for stealing six pounds of brass from a foundry. The only suggested evidence offered at the trial was, that the prisoner, who was employed upon the premises, had been seen to come into the place where the brass was kept :-Held, that there was not a scintilla of evidence to go to the jury. Reg. v. Walker, Dears. C. C. 280. Two prisoners were charged with stealing four sacks of barley and three sack bags from their master. The prisoners and B. were employed by the prosecutor to winnow barley, which he had mixed with canary seed. One of the prisoners fetched several sacks from the prosecutor's house, which he and B. filled with barley. The two prisoners then sent B. home before the usual time. At twelve o'clock on the night of the same day, the carter went into the stable with a lantern, and shortly afterwards the prisoners entered the stable. In a few minutes after this the prosecutor saw the carter in the loft above with a lantern, and found the prisoners concealed under straw in the loft, and then in a dust-bin in a stable beneath he found three sacks full of barley mixed with canary seed, which he swore was of the same kind which he had mixed. It was no part of the duty of the prisoners to place the barley in sacks or to put the sacks of barley into the dust-bin. The jury found both the prisoners guilty-Held, that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Reg. v. Samways, Dears. C. C. 371. Though no portion of the prosecutor's goods has been missed, it is a question for the jury, under all the circumstances of the case, whether the goods, which are the subject of the indictment, are his property. Reg. v. Hooper, 1 F. & F. 85— Willes. Upon the trial of an indictment for larceny, if the circumstantial evidence satisfies the jury of the guilt of the prisoner, he may be convicted, though the prosecutor is unable to swear that he has lost the thing charged to have been stolen. Reg. v. Burton, 6 Cox, C. C. 293 ; 23 L. J., M. C. 52. Production of Article Stolen.]— On an indictment against A. and B., for burglary, one of the articles stolen (the only one directly proved |
