M. that K., his brother-in-law, had taken the house, and that M. (who lived on his property) carried on the trade of a silversmith for the benefit of K. and his family, having himself neither a share in the profits nor a salary. M. stated that he had authority to sell any part of the stock, and might take money from the till, but that he should tell K. of it; and that he sometimes bought goods for the shop, and sometimes K. did it:-Held, that M. was a bailee, and that the goods in the shop might properly be laid as his property. Reg. v. Bird, 9 C. & P. 44-Bosanquet.

14. In Schools, Shops, Warehouses or Counting-Houses.

By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 56, "whosoever shall break and enter "any dwelling-house, school-house, "shop, warehouse or counting-house, "and commit any felony therein, or, "being in any dwelling-house,school"house, shop, warehouse or count"ing-house, shall commit any felony "therein, and break out of the same, "shall be guilty of felony." (Former provisions, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, ss. 12, 15.)

By s. 57, "whosoever shall break "and enter any dwelling-house, "church, chapel, meeting-house, or "other place of divine worship, or "any building within the curtilage, "school-house, shop, warehouse, or "counting-house, with intent to com"mit any felony therein, shall be "guilty of felony."

Shops.]-A shop, to be within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 15, and 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 90, s. 2, must be a shop for the sale of goods, and a mere workshop will not be sufficient. Reg. v. Sanders, 9 C. & P. 79-Alderson.

An opening of a door in a shop under the same roof where the prisoner lived as a servant, for the purpose of committing a felony, was a

breaking and entering within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 12. Reg. v. Wenmouth, 8 Cox, C. C. 348-Keating.

On an indictment under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 57, for feloniously breaking and entering a shop with intent to commit a felony; a prisoner may be found guilty of misdemeanor in attempting to commit that felony. Reg. v. Bain, 9 Cox, C. C. 98..

But a person who breaks into a blacksmith's shop and steals goods there, might be convicted of breaking into a shop and stealing goods, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 15. Reg. v. Carter, 1 C. & K. 173Denman.

Warehouses.]-A cellar used merely for the deposit of goods intended for removal and sale is a warehouse. Reg. v. Hill, 2 M. & Rob. 458Rolfe.

Counting-houses.]-A building formed partly of premises employed as chemical works; it was com monly called the machine-house, 3 weighing machine being there, where all the goods set out were weighed, and a book being kept there in which entries of the goods so weighed were made. The account of the time of the workmen employed in the works was kept in this place, the wages of the men were paid there; the books in which the entries of time and the payment of wages were entered were brought to the building for the purpose of making entries and paying wages, but at other times they were kept in what was called the office, where the general books and accounts of the concern were kept:-Held, that this building was properly described in an indictment as a counting. house within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 15. Reg. v. Potter, 2 Den. C. C. 235; 3.C. & K. 179; T. & M. 561; 15 Jur. 498; 20 L. J., M. C. 170; 5 Cox, C. C. 187.

15. Parties Indictable. A room door was latched, and one person lifted the latch and entered the room and concealed himself, for the purpose of committing a robbery there, which he afterwards accomplished. Two other persons were present with him at the time he lifted the latch, for the purpose of assisting him to enter, and screened him from observation by opening an umbrella:-Held, that the two were in law parties to the breaking and entering, and were answerable for the robbery which took place afterwards, though they were not near the spot at the time when it was perpetrated. Rex v. Jordan, 7 Car. & P. 432-Gaselee and Gurney.

Where, on an indictment for privately stealing in a shop, it appeared that there were several acting together, some in the shop, and some out, for the purpose of assisting those in the shop, and the property was stolen by the hands of one of those who were in the shop :-Held, that those who were on the outside were equally guilty as principals. Rex v. Gogerly, R. & R. C. C. 343. Upon an indictment against a party as an accessory after the fact in robbery, proof of the prisoner's knowledge of the felony, together with proof of his aiding the principal in disposing of the fruits of the robbery, is sufficient evidence of comforting and assisting, to support the indictment. Reg. v. Butterfield, 1 Cox, C. C. 39-Maule.

16. Indictment.

A house may be described as in the possession of the actual occupier, though his possession is wrongful. Rex v. Wallis, 1 M. C. C. 344. A prisoner was indicted for burglary in the dwelling-house of B. B. worked for W., who did carpenter's work for a public company, and put B. into the house, which belonged to the company, to take care of it, and some mills adjoin

ing. B. received no more wages after than before he went to live in the house :-Held, not rightly laid. Rex v. Rawlins, 7 C. & P. 150Gaselee.

An indictment for burglary stating in one count that the prisoner "did break to get out," and in another that he did break and get out, was sufficient, since the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 11, which used the words break out. Rex v. Compton, 7 C. & P. 139-Vaughan and Patteson.

An indictment on 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 86, s. 2, for the capital of fence of burglary and striking, must have charged both the burglary and the striking, and the proof must correspond with the indictment. Reg. v. Parfitt, 8 C. & P. 288-Alderson.

A. was indicted for a burglary in the house of S. W., and striking D. James. The burglary was proved as laid, but the person struck was D. Jones :-Held, that the prisoner must be acquitted of the capital charge, and convicted of burglary only. Ib.

It is sufficient in an indictment for burglary to allege that the offence was committed burglariously, without stating the time at which the offence was committed, or even that it was done in the night time. Reg. v. Thompson, 2 Cox, C. C. 445-Patteson. Contrá Rex v. Waddington, 2 East, P. C. 513.

It must be alleged and proved, either that a felony was committed in the dwelling-house, or that the party broke and entered with intent to commit some felony within the same. Rex v. Dobbs, 2 East, P. C. 513.

And whatever be the felony really intended, the same must be laid in the indictment, and proved agreeably to the fact. Rex v. Vandercomb, 2 East, P. C. 514, 517; 2 Leach, C. C. 708.

But the same fact may be laid with several intents. Rex v. Thomp

son, 2 East, P. C. 515; 2 Leach, C. C. 1105, n.

An indictment for burglary,charging in one count an intent to steal the goods of the owner, and in another an intent to murder him, is good, for it is the same fact and evidence, only laid in different ways. Ib.

The name of the owner of the house is essential in an indictment for burglary, and for stealing in the dwelling-house. Rex v. White, 1 Leach, C. C. 252; 2 East, 513,780; S. P. Rex v. Woodward, 1 Leach, C. C. 253, n.

a warehouse, and stealing goods, stated the offence to have been committed in "the parish of St. Peter the Great, in the county of W." The only part of the parish of St. Peter the Great is in the county of W.:-Held, that indictment could not be supported for the breaking into the warehouse, but that it was sufficient for the larceny; and that, to be good as to the breaking, it should have charged the offence to have been committed "in that part of the parish of St. Peter the Great which lies within the county of W." Ib.

An indictment for burglary charg

An indictment for burglariously breaking and entering the house of A., with intent to steal the goods of B., is bad, if no person of that name had any property in the house. Rex v. Jenks, 2 Leach, C. C. 774; 2 East, P. C. 514.

An indictment alleging that J. F., late of the parish of F., in the county of M., with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the dwelling-house of the guardians of the poor of the P. Union, there situate, feloniously did break and enter, is a sufficient description of the situation of the work-house, the word, "there situate," referring not to the union, but to the parish before mentioned. Reg. v. Frowen, 4 Cox, C. C. 266— Platt.

It is sufficient to allege that the burglary was committed at a place, naming it, e. g., "at Norton-juxta-Kempsey, in the county aforesaid," without stating the place to be a parish, vill, chapelry, or the like. Reg. v. Brookes, Car. & M. 544-Patteson.

An indictment for breaking into

night-time, into the dwelling-house of E. B. " with intent the goods and chattels in the same dwelling-house then and there being feloniously and burglariously to steal, and stealing the goods of E. B." It was proved that the house was that of E. B., but that the goods the prisoner stole were the joint property of E. B. and two others -Held, that, if it was proved that the pris oner broke into the house of E. B. with intent to steal the goods there generally, that would be sufficient to sustain the charge of burglary contained in the indictment, without proof of an intent to steal the goods of the particular person whose goods the indictment charged that he did steal. Reg. v. Clarke, 1 C. & K. 421-Coleridge.

An indictment for house-breaking, after charging the breaking and entering in the usual form, charged that the prisoner "fortytwo pieces of the current gold coin of this realm, called sovereigns, of the value of 427., in the same dwelling house then and there being found, then and there feloniously did steal and carry away," is good, and the words "then and there," in the last allegation, are sufficient without the words" in the same dwelling-house" being added to them. Reg. v. Andrews, Car. & M. 121-Coleridge.

An indictment which charges that the prisoner unlawfully broke and entered the dwelling-house of R. P., "with intent the goods and chattels in the dwelling-house then and there being then and there feloniously to steal, take and carry away," is good, although it does not state whose goods the prisoner intended to steal. Reg. v. Lawes, 1 C. & K. 62-Erskine.

The alterations made in the law with respect to burglary, by 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 86, as to the hours, and as to the punishment, did not make it necessary for an indictment to that offence to conclude contra forman statuti, as the alteration with respect to the hours did not alter the offence, and the mere diminution of the punishment did not make that conclusion necessary. Reg. v. Polly, 1 C. & K. 77-Erskine.

17. Evidence and Trial.

On an indictment for burglary by breaking into a house in the night-time, and stealing to the value of 5l. or more, the prisoner might be convicted of burglary, or of house-breaking, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 12, or of stealing in a dwelling-house to the value of 51. Rex v. Compton, 3 C. & P. 418Gaselee.

On an indictment for burglary, the prisoner may be acquitted of the breaking, and found guilty of stealing in the dwelling-house. Rex v. Withal, 1 Leach, C. C. 88; 2 East, P. C. 515, 517.

If a prisoner is charged with a burglary and stealing the goods, the prosecutor, on failing to prove that these facts were committed on the day laid in the indictment, cannot be admitted to prove that the larceny was committed on a prior day. Rex v. Vandercomb, 2 Leach, C. C. 708; 2 East, P. C. 519.

On an indictment for burglariously breaking and entering a dwelling-house, (omitting the words "with intent to steal") and then FISH. DIG.-6

and there stealing goods therein, the prisoner may be well convicted of the burglary if the larceny be proved: secus if not. Rex v. Rex v. Furnival, R. & R. C. C. 445.

Upon an indictment for burglary and larceny against two, one may be found guilty of the burglary and larceny, and the other of the larceny only. Rex v. Butterworth, R. & R. C. C. 520.

When the felony is laid to constitute the burglary, an acquittal of the burglary is an acquittal of stealing in the dwelling-house. Rex v. Comer, 1 Leach, C. C. 36.

Where a party is indicted both for burglary and feloniously stealing in the dwelling-house, and is acquitted of the burglary, but found guilty of the stealing, the verdict should be entered thus: "Jury say not guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling-house in the night, but guilty of stealing the (property) in the dwelling-house." Rex v. Hungerford, 2 East, P. C. 518; 1 Leach, C. C. 88.

On a charge of burglary, possession by the prisoners of part of the stolen property very soon after the burglary, with an account given of it not reasonable or credible, is sufficient primâ facie evidence, without express evidence to falsify it. It is so, however, only if, upon all the circumstances in the case, the account given is not reasonably credible. Reg. v. Exall, 4 F. & F. 922-Pollock.

Upon a trial for breaking into a booking-office at a railway station, evidence was admitted that the prisoners had, on the same night, broken into three other bookingoffices belonging to three other stations on the same railway, the four cases being all mixed up together. Reg. v. Cobden, 3 F. & F. 833Bramwell. See Reg. v. Rearden, 4 F. & F. 76-Willes.

In an indictment for burglary, the entry was proved to have been effected by breaking open a window