he found it was gone, or the like,-will be good evidence to prove the intent. Or it may be proved from any other admission or acts of the defendant from which the jury may infer it. 6. Stealing in a Dwelling-house or Building. Stealing in a Dwelling-house to the value of Five Pounds. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the dwelling-house of C. D., -, in the county of feloniously did in the year of our Lord in the parish of steal, take, and carry away certain money of the said C. D., and one gold watch and one pair of leather boots of the goods and chattels of the said C. D., of the value in the whole of five pounds and more, [" chattels, money, or valuable security, to the value of 51. or more,"] in the said dwelling-house then being against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. Felony; transportation for not more than fifteen years, nor less than ten ;—or imprisonment, [with or without hard labour, s. 3] for not more than three years, 1 Vict. c. 90, s. 1, the imprisonment solitary, for not more than a month at a time, or three months in a year. Id. s. 3. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. The larceny as in ordinary cases, (see ante, pp. 371, 369); but the value of the goods must be proved to be five pounds at the least. If you fail to prove them to be of that value, still the defendant may be convicted of the simple larceny. Upon an indictment for stealing sixty-eight yards of lace in a dwelling-house, it appeared that the prisoner, who was shopman to the prosecutor at Abingdon, sent the lace in a parcel by the coach from that place to London; the lace was in several pieces, none of which was separately worth 51., but the whole together were worth much more; and as those pieces might have been stolen at different times, the prisoner's counsel suggested that, in favorem vitæ, they should be taken to be so ; but Bolland, B., said that he could not assume that, as it was proved that the prisoner brought them all out of the prosecutor's house at the same time, and sent them in one parcel to London. R. v. Jones, 4 Car. & P. 217. น 2. That the house in which the larceny was committed, was a dwelling-house, as in burglary, (see ante, p. 333), or some out-house or building within the same curtilage, occupied therewith, and having a communication with the dwellinghouse, either immediate or by means of a covered or enclosed passage leading from the one to the other, as in burglary; 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 13, ante, p. 335; and that it was the dwelling-house, &c., of C. D., see ante, p. 336, and situate as described in the indictment. See ante, p. 339. Where it appeared that the prosecutor formerly lived with his family in a house in St. Martin's-lane, where he carried on his business of an upholsterer; but he afterwards went with his family to live in the Haymarket, keeping the house in St. Martin's-lane as a warehouse and work-shop, two of his workwoman sleeping in it to take care of it; a larceny being committed in it, and the party convicted as for a larceny in a dwelling-house, the judges held that it could not be deemed the dwelling-house of the prosecutor. R. v. Flannagan, R. & Ry. 187. Where it appeared that the larceny was committed in a bed room over a stable, which was not under the same roof with the dwelling-house, nor communicated with it in the manner above mentioned, this was holden not to be a stealing in the dwelling-house. R. v. Turner, 6 Car. & P. 407. The goods must also appear to have been under the protection of the house at the time of the larceny. Where it appeared that the prisoner Taylor, who lodged in the house of one Wakefield, having met an acquaintance in a public house, brought him home to sleep at his lodgings, and during the night stole his watch from the bed head; neither Wakefield nor his family knew of the prosecutor being there: upon an indictment for this offence, charging it as a larceny in the dwelling-house of Wakefield, it was doubted at first whether the prisoner could be convicted of a larceny in the dwelling-house, as the offence was committed in his own lodgings; but a majority of the judges held that the goods, although the property of the lodger's guest, were under the protection of the dwelling-house, and that the prisoner might therefore be convicted of stealing in the dwelling-house. R. v. Taylor, R. & Ry. 480. Even where a man, named James Bowden, was indicted for stealing goods to the value of five pounds, " in the dwelling-house of him the said James Bowden," and it appeared that the prosecutor, a hawker, had left his box of jewellery goods in the house of the prisoner, where he had lodged, and that the prisoner stole them the judges unanimously held that this was a stealing in the dwelling-house. R. v. Bowden, 1 Car. & K. 147. And where the prosecutrix, residing at 38, Rupert-street, expected goods to be sent from Hanwell; they arrived in London, and were carried from the coach office, by the regular porter, to the house of one Davidson, No. 33, Rupert-street, and Davidson imagining they were for the prisoner, who lodged in his house, delivered them to him, and he converted them to his own use, and absconded: it being doubted at first whether these goods were sufficiently under the protection of the house to constitute a stealing in the dwelling-house, the matter was referred to the judges; and they held that the goods were under the protection of the dwelling-house, and that the conviction of the prisoner on this charge was correct. R. v. Carrol, Ry. & M. 89. But if the property be under the immediate protection of the person of the owner or his bailee, and be stolen from him whilst in a dwelling-house, the offender cannot be indicted as for stealing in the dwellinghouse; but the indictment must be for stealing from the person, or for a simple larceny. Even where it appeared that the prosecutrix sent her servant with a bank-note for twentyfive pounds to the apartments of the prisoner, who lodged in her house, and requested he would give her change of it; the prisoner said he had not sufficient gold, but he would go to his banker's and get it for her, and he went out with the note in his hand, but never returned: the judges held that this was not a larceny in the dwelling-house. R. v. Campbell, 2 East, P. C. 644. 2 Leach, 642. So, in the case of ring dropping, if the parties be in a dwelling-house at the time the prosecutor deposits his money with the pretended finder, the offender cannot be indicted for stealing the money in the dwelling-house, because it was under the owner's protection at the time it was taken. Owen's case, 2 East, P. C. 645. But where the prosecutor went to a house with a girl, to sleep with her, and before he went to bed he put his watch in his hat and laid them on the table; and whilst he was asleep, the girl stole the watch and absconded: Parke, B., and Patteson, J., held this to be a stealing in the dwelling-house, as the watch could not be deemed to be under the personal protection of the prosecutor at the time. R. v. Hamilton, 8 Car. & P. 49. If you fail in proving that the stealing was in a dwellinghouse, or that the property was under the protection of the dwelling-house at the time, the defendant may be convicted of the simple larceny. See ante, p. 174. Stealing in a Dwelling-house, and by Menaces putting some Person therein in bodily Fear. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that A. B., on the to wit. in the year of our Lord day of in the dwelling-house of C. D., feloniously did steal, in the parish of- -, in the county of take, and carry away certain money of the said C. D., and one gold watch, and one pair of leather boots of the goods and chattels of the said C. D., [" any property," that is, "chattels, money, or valuable security"] in the said dwelling-house then being; and did then feloniously in the said dwelling-house, by menaces and threats ["any menace or threat"] put one Ann Smith, in the said dwelling-house then being, in bodily fear against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. Felony; transportation for not more than fifteen years, nor less than ten ;-or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 7] for not more than three years, 1 Vict. c. 86, s. 5, the imprisonment solitary for not more than a month at a time, or three months in a year. Id. s. 7. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. The larceny in the dwelling-house, as in the last case, except that the value of the article stolen is immaterial. 2. That the prisoner at the same time, by menaces or hreats, put the person named in the indictment in bodily fear. If you fail to prove this, the defendant may be convicted of stealing in the dwelling-house to the value of five pounds, if the property stolen be laid and proved to be of that value, and the stealing proved to have been in the dwelling-house,or of simple larceny, if the value be laid or proved under five pounds. See ante, p. 174. Stealing from a Building, &c., Goods in the Process of Manufacture. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. Soath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord in a certain mill and building of C. D. ["building, field, or other place"] in the parish of, in the county of - feloniously did steal, take, and carry away twenty yards of woollen cloth ["any goods, or article of silk, woollen, linen, or cotton, or of any one or more of those materials mixed with each other, or mixed with any other material"] of the value of ten shillings and more, of the goods and chattels of the said C. D., the said goods and chattels being then laid, placed, and exposed in the said mill and building, in a certain stage, process, and progress of manufacture: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. Felony; transportation for not more than fifteen years, nor less than ten; or imprisonment, [with or without hard labour, s. 3], for not more than three years, 1 Vict. c. 90, s. 2, the imprisonment solitary for not more than a month at a time, or three months in a year. Id. s. 3. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. The larceny as in ordinary cases; see ante, pp. 371, 369; except that you must prove the value to be ten shillings at the least. If you fail in proving the goods to be of this value, still the defendant may be convicted of the simple larceny. 2. That the goods were stolen from the "building, field, or other place" in the indictment mentioned. If you fail to prove this, the defendant may still be convicted of the simple larceny. 3. That at the time they were stolen, they were "laid, placed, or exposed" in the "building, field, or other place," in a certain "stage, process, or progress of manufacture," as stated in the indictment. If you fail to prove this, the defendant may still be convicted of the simple larceny. 7. Stealing from Ships, Wharfs, &c. Stealing from a Vessel on a navigable River, &c. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord feloniously did steal, take, and carry away fifty pounds weight of cloves, of the goods and merchandize of C. D., ["any goods or merchandize"] in a certain ship and vessel ["vessel, barge, or boat of any description whatsoever"] upon a certain navigable river called the ["in any port of entry or discharge, or upon any navigable |