will suffice. Within this doctrine the person may be deemed to protect all things belonging to the individual within a distance, not easily defined, over which the influence of the personal presence extends. If a thief, says Lord Hale, come into the presence of A., and, with violence and putting A. in fear, drive away his horse, cattle or sheep, he commits robbery. But if the taking be not either directly from his person or in his presence it is not robbery. In robbery, says East, 2 P. C. 707, it is sufficient if the property be taken in the presence of the owner; it may not be taken immediately from his person, so that there be violence to his person, or putting him in fear. As where one, having first assaulted another, takes away his horse standing by him; or, having put him in fear, drives his cattle out of his pasture in his presence, or takes up his purse which the other in his fright had thrown into a bush. Or, adds Hawkins, rob my servant of my money before my face, after having first assaulted me: 1 Hawk. 214. Where, on an indictment for robbery, it appeared that the prosecutor gave his bundle to his brother to carry for him, and while they were going along the road the prisoners assaulted the prosecutor, upon which his brother laid down his bundle in the road, and ran to his assistance, and one of the prisoners then ran away with the bundle; Vaughan, B., intimated an opinion that under these circumstances the indictment was not sustainable, as the bundle was in the possession of another person at the time when the assault was committed. Highway robbery was a felonious taking of the property of another by violence against his will, either from his person or in his presence: the bundle in this case was not in the prosecutor's possession. If these prisoners intended to take the bundle, why did they assault the prosecutor, and not the person who had it: R. v. Fallows, 2 Russ. 107. The prisoners were convicted of a simple larceny. Quare, whether if the indictment had been for robbing the brother, who was carrying the bundle, it might not have been sustained, as

it was the violence of the prisoners that made him put it down and it was taken in his presence. In R. v. Wright, Styles, 156, it was holden that if a man's servant be robbed of his master's goods in the sight of his master, this is robbery of the master: note by Greaves.

Where, on an indictment for robbery and stealing from the person, it was proved that the prosecutor, who was paralyzed, received, whilst sitting on a sofa in a room, a violent blow on the head from one prisoner, whilst the other prisoner went and stole a cash-box from a cupboard in the same room; it was held that the cash-box being in the room in which the prosecutor was sitting, and he being aware of that fact, it was virtually under his protection; and it was left to the jury to say whether the cash-box was under the protection of the prosecutor at the time it was stolen: R. v. Selway, 8 Cox, 235.

The taking must be charged to be with violence from the person, and against the will of the party; but it does. not appear certain that the indictment should also charge that he was put in fear, though this is usual, and, therefore, safest to be done.

But in the conference on Donally's case, where the subject was much considered, it was observed by Eyre, B., that the more ancient precedents did not state the putting in fear, and that, though others stated the putting in corporeal fear, yet the putting in fear of life was of modern introduction. Other judges considered that the gist of the offence was the taking by violence, and that the putting in fear was only a constructive violence, supplying the place of actual force. In general, however, as was before observed, no technical description of the fact is necessary, if upon the whole it plainly appears to have been committed with violence against the will of the party: 2 East, P. C. 783.

The ownership of the property must be alleged the same as in an indictment for larceny. The value of the articles. stolen need not necessarily be stated. In R. v. Bingley, 5

C. & P. 602, the prisoner robbed the prosecutor of a piece of paper, containing a memorandum of money that a person owed him, and it was held sufficient to constitute a robbery.

PART XXIX.

ROBBERY AND EXTORTION.

DEFINITION.

397. Robbery is theft accompanied with violence or threats of violence to any person or property used to extort the property stolen, or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.

AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.

398. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to be whipped who-

(a) robs any person and at the time of, or immediately before or immediately after, such robbery wounds, beats, strikes, or uses any personal violence to, such person; or

(b) being together with any other person or persons robs, or assaults with intent to rob, any person; or

(c) being armed with an offensive weapon or instrument robs, or assaults with intent to rob any person. R. S. C. c. 164, s. 34. 24-25 V. c. 96, s. 43 (Imp.).

This clause provides for five offences: 1. Being armed with any offensive weapon or instrument, robbing any person.

2. Being so armed, assaulting any person with intent to rob this person.

3. Together with one or more person or persons, robbing any other person.

4. Together with one or more person or persons, assaulting any person with intent to rob this person.

5. Robbing any person, and at the time of or immediately before, or immediately after such robbery, wound

ing, beating, striking, or using any other personal violence to any person.

1. Indictment for a robbery by a person armed.....that J. S., on.........at......... being then armed with a certain offensive weapon and instrument, to wit, a bludgeon, in and. upon one D. unlawfully did make an assault, and him the said D. in bodily fear and danger of his life then unlawfully did put, and a sum of money, to wit, the sum of ten dollars, of the moneys of the said D., then unlawfully and violently did steal.........

2. Indictment for an assault by a person armed with intent to commit robbery.........that J. S. on.........at....................... being then armed with a certain offensive weapon and instrument, called a bludgeon, in and upon one D. unlawfully did make an assault, with intent the moneys, goods. and chattels of the said D. from the person and against the will of him the said D., then unlawfully and violently to steal.........

3. Indictment for robbery by two or more persons in company.........that A. B. and D. H. together, in and upon one J. N. unlawfully did make an assault, and him the said J. N. in bodily fear and danger of his life then and there together unlawfully did put, and the moneys of the said J. N. to the amount of.........from the person and against the will of the said J. M. then unlawfully and violently together did steal. (If one only of them be apprehended it will charge him by name together with a certain other person, or certain other persons, to the jurors aforesaid unknown).

4. Indictment for, together with one or more person or persons, assaulting with intent to rob.-Can be drawn on forms 2 and 3.

5. Robbery accompanied by wounding, etc.- that J. N. at in and upon one A. M. unlawfully did make an assault, and him the said A. M. in bodily fear

on

and danger of his life then unlawfully did put, and the moneys of the said A. M. to the amount of ten dollars and one gold watch, of the goods and chattels of the said A. M. from the person and against the will of the said A. M. then unlawfully and violently did steal, and that the said J. N. immediately before he so robbed the said A. M. as aforesaid, the said A. M. did unlawfully wound. (It will be immaterial, in any of these indictments, if the place where the robbery was committed be stated incorrectly.)

The observations ante, applicable to robbery generally, apply to these offences.

Under indictment No. 1 the defendant may be convicted of the robbery only, or of an assault with intent to rob. The same, under indictments numbers 3 and 5. And wherever a robbery with aggravating circumstances, that is to say, either by a person armed, or by several persons together, or accompanied with wounding, is charged in the indictment, the jury may convict of an assault with intend to rob, attended with the like aggravation, the assault following the nature of the robbery: R. v Mitchell, 2 Den. 468, and remarks upon it, in Dears. 19.

By s. 713 a verdict of common assault may be returned if the evidence warrants it. And by s. 711, if the offence has not been completed, a verdict of guilty of the attempt to commit the offence charged may be given, if the evidence warrants it.

Upon an indictment for robbery charging a wounding the jury may convict of unlawful wounding under s. 242, or of an assault causing actual bodily harm under s. 262. See remarks under next section.

PUNISHMENT OF ROBBERY.

399. Every one who commits robbery is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment. R. S, C. c. 164, s. 32.

Indictment for robbery.—

in and upon one

J. N. unlawfully did make an assault, and him, the said J. N., in bodily fear and danger of his life then did put, and