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 ofany 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 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 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. 3; Production of Article Stolen.]On an indictment against A. and B., for burglary, one of the articles stolen (the only one directly proved to have been in the possession of either of them) being a ring, which was described particularly by the prosecutor, and proved to have had an inscription upon it, and to have been just like one he produced; and one of the prisoners being proved to have shewn, soon after the burglary, a ring which was proved to have been just like that produced, and to have had an inscription upon it, but no notice to produce which had been given :— Held, that the contents of the inscription on the prosecutor's ring could not be proved, and that, as there had been no notice given to the prisoner to produce the ring shewn by him to the witness, the contents of the inscription upon it could not be proved. Reg. v. Farr, 4 F. & F. 336-Channell. On an indictment for the larceny of a bill of exchange obtained from the prosecutor, under a pretence of discounting it, parol evidence of the bill may be given after proof of a subpoena duces tecum given to the person in whose possession it was shewn to be previously to the trial, but who did not attend. Rex v. Aickles, 1 Leach, C. C. 294; 2 East, P. C. 675. Of Receiving.]-If the prisoner at different times receives property stolen from the prosecutor, although the substantive charge must be confined to some one receiving, yet the other receivings may be given in evidence to shew a guilty knowledge that the goods were stolen. Rex v. Dunn, Car. C. L. 132; 1 M. C. C. 146. of the law of England, that proof that a man had committed one offence is no proof that he has committed another, and as the possession of stolen goods on a previous occasion could not shew any knowledge on the part of the prisoner that the particular goods mentioned in the indictment were stolen. Reg. v. Oddy, 2 Den. C. C. 264; 15 Jur. 517; 20 L. J., M. C. 108; 5 Cox, C. C. 210. If an indictment against a receiver states the principal felony to have been committed by A., whatever would have been evidence of the principal felony to convict A., is receivable to prove this allegation on the trial of the receiver, but is not conclusive. Rex v. Blick, 4 C. & P. 377-Bosanquet. In an indictment for receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen by a person named, the stealing by the person must be prov. ed, or the receiver must be acquitted. Rex v. Woolford, 1 M. & Rob. 384-Patteson. Stolen property being found concealed in an old engine-house, and it being watched, the prisoners were taking it away :--Held, that, to warrant the conviction of the prisoners on an indictment charging them as receivers, the jury must be satisfied that the property had been stolen by some other person to the knowledge of the prisoners, and that there should be some evidence to shew that such was the case. Rex v. Densley, 6 C. & P. 399-Patteson. A prisoner was to be tried on three indictments: for receiving stolen tin, for stealing iron, and for re-receiving stolen brass. A constable went with a search-warrant to search the prisoner's premises for stolen iron, and, having read the warrant to the prisoner, the latter made a statement:-Held, on the trial of the first indictment, that the whole of the statement was receivable, although part of it related to the charge respecting the iron; and al A prisoner was indicted for ceiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen; to prove the scienter, evidence was given, that on a previous occasion other stolen goods, the property of different own ers, had been found in the possession of the prisoner :-Held, that the evidence was improperly admitted, as it is a general principle so, that evidence might be given, | been withdrawn. Reg. v. Wood, 1 that, at the time of the search, the F. & F. 497-Martin. prisoner endeavored to conceal some brass, and also, that almost immediately after he was taken away from the premises, at the conclusion of the search, his wife carried some tin under her cloak from a warehouse on the premises. Reg. v. Mansfield, Car. & M. 140-Coleridge. On an indictment against A. for stealing, and B. for receiving goods, evidence that on various former occasions portions of the commodity stolen have been missed, and that the prisoners have, after such occasions, been found selling such a commodity; and that on the last occasion it was part of what was stolen, is sufficient to fix the receiver with a guilty knowledge. Reg. v. Nicholls, 1 F. & F. 51-Cockburn. To justify a conviction for receiving stolen property in the case of goods found, it is not sufficient to shew that the prisoner had a general knowledge of the circumstances under which the goods were taken, unless the jury is also satisfied that he knew that the circumstances were such as constituted a larceny. Reg. v. Adams, 1 F. & F. 86Crowder. An admission of his guilt, made by the thief while in custody, in the presence of the receiver, is evidence against the receiver. Reg. v. Cox, 1 F. & F. 90-Crowder. The prisoner had been a lodger in the prosecutor's house, and left under circumstances not disclosed. On the following day the prosecutor's wife also left the house, taking with her a small bundle. Two days after the prisoner was found in company with the prosecutor's wife (who was passing by the prisoner's name) on board a ship bound for Quebec. Property belonging to the prosecutor, of a bulk greater than could have been comprised in the bundle taken by the wife, was found in the prisoner's cabin and upon his person :-Held, that there was some evidence to support a conviction for receiving the property, knowing it to have been stolen. Reg. v. Deer, L. & C. 240; 9 Cox, C. C. 225; 8 Jur., N. S. 1216; 32 L. J., M. C. 33; 11 W. R. 43; 7 L. T, N. S. 366. On an indictment for feloniously receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen, it is unsafe to convict a party as receiver on the evidence of the thief, unless it is confirmed. Reg. v. Robinson, 4 F. & F. 43-Pollock. On an indictment for receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen, the mere fact that they were found on the prisoner's premises is not sufficient to confirm the evidence of the thief, so far as to make it proper to convict. Reg. v. Pratt, 4 F. & F. 315-Pollock. 23. Punishment. In an indictment for receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen, belief without actual knowledge is sufficient to sustain it. Reg. v. White, 1 F. & F. 665 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, ss. 7, 8, 9, 98, Bramwell. 99.) 24. Restitution and Recovery of Stolen Property. In an indictment for receiving goods knowing them to be stolen, evidence that the thief had at one time been lawfully employed to Restitution.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. sell such articles to the prisoner, c. 96, s. 100, if any person guilty will warrant an acquittal in the ab-" of any such felony or misdemeansence of any evidence that the pris- or as is mentioned in the act, in oner knew that the authority had "stealing, taking, obtaining, ex 66 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, repealed 4 Geo. 4, c. 11, except as to piracy, and 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, wholly repeals 1 Geo. 4, c. 115. The 21 Hen. 8, c. 11, which restored goods to a prosecutor cn conviction of the person who took them away, extended only to a felonious and not to a fraudulent taking. Rex v. De Veaux, 2 Leach, C. C. 585; 2 East, P. C. 789, 839. torting, embezzling, converting "which includes the stealing of any "or disposing of, or in knowingly" property, and it shall appear to "receiving, any chattel, money, "the court by the evidence that the "valuable security, or other prop- "prisoner has sold the stolen property whatsoever, shall be indicted" erty to any person, and that such "for such offence, by or on the be-" person has had no knowledge that "half of the owner of the property, "the same was stolen, and that any "or his executor or administrator, "monies have been taken from the "and convicted thereof, in such " prisoner on his apprehension, it case the property shall be restored "shall be lawful for the court, on "to the owner or his representative;" the application of such purchaser, "and in every case in this section" and on the restoration of the stolaforesaid, the court before whom en property to the prosecutor, to any person shall be tried for any "order that out of such monies a "such felony or misdemeanor, shall "sum not exceeding the amount of "have power to award, from time" the proceeds of such sale be de"to time, writs of restitution for "livered to the purchaser.". "the said property, or to order the "the restitution thereof in a summary manner: provided that if it "shall appear, before any award or "order made, that any valuable security shall have been bonâ fide paid or discharged by some person or body corporate liable to "the payment thereof, or being a "negotiable instrument, shall have "been bonâ fide taken or received "by transfer or delivery, by some person or body corporate for a "just and valuable consideration, "without any notice, or without any reasonable cause to suspect "that the same had by any felony or misdemeanor been stolen, taken, "obtained, extorted, embezzled, con"verted or disposed of, in such case the court shall not award or "order the restitution of such secu"rity; provided also, that nothing "in this section contained shall apply to the case of any prosecution any trustee, banker, merchant, attorney, factor, broker, or other agent intrusted with the possession of goods, or documents of ti"tle to goods, for any misdemean"or against this act." (Former provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 57.) 66 of Where a prisoner pleaded guilty to several indictments charging him with larceny, and an application was made on the part of the prosecutor for an order for restitution, the court consented to hear counsel on behalf of those who were in possession of the goods, and against whom the order, if made, would operate. Reg. v. Macklin, 5 Cox, C. C. 216-Alderson and Martin. Where, under such circumstances, the depositions taken before the magistrate disclosed a clear case of felony, the court declined to order a writ of restitution to issue on the suggestion of the holders of the goods that the prisoner was an agent, and therefore that the fraudulent dealing with the goods on his part did not constitute a felony, but the court made the common order for restitution. Ib. The court cannot, under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 57, order a Bank of England note which has been |