Page images
PDF
EPUB

Pearce's case.
The prisoner
obtained the
mail bags
fraudulently
by the delivery

of a person
in the post
office to him,
while on the
outside; and
it was holden

to be a stealing
out of the
post office.

Servants of the

post office may stealing out of the post office.

be convicted of

Howatt's case.
Holden that

seems to fall within one of the offences provided for by the 5 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 19; though some difficulty might have arisen in bringing it within the corresponding clause, 7 Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 3, because it appeared that the letter had not been destroyed, but was found in the prisoner's custody. (ƒ)

In a case upon the 7 Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 2, it appeared that the pri-. soner, intending to steal the mail bags, went one night, about the usual time, to the post-office at High Wycombe; and, pretending to be the mail guard, obtained, from the person who was there, the bags of letters, which were let down to him from out of the window of the post office by a string, from whence he took them, and immediately made off. Upon these facts the prisoner was convicted on a count in the indictment for stealing the letters out of the post office; and the case being submitted to the consideration of the twelve Judges, they were all of opinion that the conviction was right; and that the artifice of the prisoner, in obtaining the delivery of the letters, in the bag, out of the house, was the same as if he had actually taken them out himself. (g) In this case the property did not pass; as the postmaster had no property in the mail bags to part with. (h)

It was supposed to have been decided that the second section of the 7 Geo. 3, c. 50, did not extend to servants of the post office. (i) But the report of such decision has been mentioned as incorrect. And it is clear that a person might be convicted under the third section of the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, for stealing a letter, though such person had an employment in the post office, especially if such letter did not come to him in the course of his employment. The prisoner was employed by the post office to deliver letters, and not to sort them; but he did sort them, when regularly he ought not to have done so, and, whilst sorting, stole a letter. The indictment charged him as a sorter with secreting, and as a common person (under sec. 3, of the 52 Geo. 3,) with stealing: but as it appeared that he ought not to have been allowed to sort, he was acquitted of secreting, and it was then urged that he could not be convicted under the third section, because he was a person employed in the post office, and the case of Rex v. Pooley was cited. A case being reserved, the Judges stated that the report of Rex v. Pooley was as to the point in question mistaken; that Rex v. Simpson, cor. Lord Ellenborough, Thomson, B., and Lawrence, J., O. B. 1810, was in point the other way; that a man who stole was not less a person stealing because he had some employment in the office; and that upon a contrary construction if a person in the office stole, but not in the course of his employment, he would be unpunishable. (j)

Previously to the last case it had been holden that a letter-carrier taking letters out of the post-office, intending to deliver them to the

(f) 2 East, P. C. c. 16, s. 23, p. 583; and see Howatt's case, infra.

(g) Pearce's case, Hil. T. 1793. 2 East, P. C. c. 16, s. 39, p. 603.

(h) This was noticed as differing the case from that of Atkinson, 2 East, P. C. c. 16, s. 104, p. 673. Ante, p. 34.

(i) Rex v. Pooley, Russ. & Ry. 31. 2 Leach, 904. 1 East, P. C. Addenda, xvii. 3 Bos. & Pul. 315. Skutt's case, O. B. July Sess. 1774, as stated in Pooley's case, 2 Leach, 904. A different objection is mentioned as the ground of the acquittal

in Skutt's case in another report of it (1) Leach, 106. 2 East, P. C. c. 16, s. 22, p. 582,) namely, that the letters contained money, and not any security relating to the payment of money mentioned in the statute. (j) Rex v. Brown, East. T. 1817, MS. Bayley, J., and Russ. & Ry. 32, note (a). And see Rex v. Salisbury, 5 C. & P. 155, where Patteson, J., held that a letter carrier might be convicted of stealing a letter out of a post office upon an indictment under the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143.

out of the

office, intending to deliver them to the embezzle the postage, was not indictable under the

owners, but to

Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 2.

owners, but to embezzle the postage, was not indictable for stealing a letter-carrier such letters, under the second section of the 7 Geo. 3, c. 50. The taking letters prisoner was a letter-carrier at the post-office, at Manchester; he contrived to obtain possession of the letters in question before they were counted out, and delivered to him, by any of the clerks, in the usual way; and he was detected with them in his pocket, in the let ter-carrier's room, which was near to the clerk's office. But it appeared from circumstances, and the jury so found, when they convicted him of the offence of stealing the letters, "that he intended 7 to have delivered the letters, and only to have embezzled the postage." Upon the case being afterwards submitted to the consideration of the twelve Judges, two of them, at first, suggested that as the act of the prisoner deprived the crown of its lien, though there were no intention to defraud the true owner, it was as much larceny as stealing from a pawn-broker; and that the clause in question was positive, without adverting to the view with which the act was done. On the other hand it was observed that the two first clauses of the statute, sec. 1 and 2, respected the safe carriage of letters, and seemed to be confined, as appeared further by the preamble, to a taking to the prejudice of the owner: and that the third clause, sec. 3, was for the protection of the revenue; which went to shew that the Legislature did not mean to protect the revenue by the antecedent clauses. And it was also observed that if the letters had been so taken by those to whom they were directed, it would not have been within the clause under consideration: though, if it were a question of larceny at common law, it would be equally larceny in the owner. And this being an indictment on the statute, and not for taking the goods of such an one, as charged in an indictment for stealing the goods of a bailee, all the Judges ultimately agreed that the conviction was wrong, on the finding of the jury, which negatived a stealing within the act. (k)

not a secreting

was to deliver

Secreting a letter containing a bill of exchange was not within the Secreting a 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2, if the object was to deliver the letter with its letter in order contents, but to cheat the revenue of the postage. The first count to obtain the stated the prisoner to be employed in stamping letters, and that he postage was secreted a letter containing bills of exchange. The second count within the 52 charged the prisoner with stealing the bills. The prisoner was a Geo. 3, c. 143, stamper in the London post-office, and having been seen slip a letter if the object into his coat pocket, was desired to empty his pocket, which he did, the letter, and and thereout produced eight letters, one of which was the letter stated embezzle the in the indictment; it was a letter written from America, and put in postage. the post-office at Liverpool marked "Liverpool ship letter:" from whence it arrived that morning, directed "Mr. Samuel Williams, 13, Finsbury Square." It was and had been taxed as a double letter, and the sum of three shillings and twopence marked upon it as the amount of postage, and had been afterwards stamped by the prisoner, whose duty it was, after stamping it, to deliver it to the sorter. The other seven letters were single letters, and it was sworn that they could be of no use to the prisoner, but to enable him to receive the postage. When the prisoner produced the letters, he was asked if he had any explanation to give, and he said he had taken them to cog, which is a cant phrase for taking them as missorted letters to get

(k) Howatt's case, Lancaster Sum. Ass. 1795, and Mich. T. 1795. 2 East, P. C. c. 16, s. 39, p. 604.

[blocks in formation]

the postage. The jury found the prisoner guilty, but added that they thought the secreting the letter was only for the purpose of appropriating the postage; and, upon a case reserved, the Judges were of opinion that as the statute extended to such letters only as contained valuable documents, the security of the documents was the object contemplated by the Legislature, and as the prisoner had no intention to put these documents in hazard, or to prevent the person for whom they were intended from receiving them, the case, though within the letter, was not within the spirit of the act, and the conviction was therefore wrong. (n)

The 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 3, made it felony to steal "from or out of any post office or house or place for the receipt or delivery of letters ;" and under that act it was held that a receiving house was not a "post office," but " a place for the receipt of letters," and that the whole shop and not merely the letter-box was to be considered "a place for the receipt of letters"; and that in order to constitute a stealing from or out of such place the letter must be carried out of the shop, and therefore, if a person took a letter and stole its contents in the shop, that was not an offence within that section of the act. The indictment in some counts charged the prisoner with stealing a letter from and out of a certain post office, and it appeared that the prisoner was servant of Mr. Abram, a law stationer, at a shop in Middle Temple lane, which was a receiving house of the general post office. The letter in question was taken to Mr. Abram's shop, but whether it was put into the letter-box, or given to a person in Mr. Abram's shop was not clearly proved. One of the notes contained in the letter was afterwards found in a boot, in a room of a house opposite to Mr. Abram's shop, and the prisoner acknowledged having put this note into the boot: it was held that this shop was not a post office within the meaning of the act; but that it was "a place for the receipt of letters "; that the whole room was the place for receiving letters and not the mere box, and that if a person went into the shop and laid a letter on the counter, that was sufficient: but that in order to convict the prisoner of stealing the letter out of the post office the jury must be satisfied that he took the letter out of the shop, and it was not sufficient if he opened it in the shop and took its contents out in the shop. (0)

It has been held that letters put into pigeon-holes in a post office for private individuals are still within the post office. On an indictment on the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, for stealing letters from the post office at Liverpool, it appeared that at that post office there is a set of pigeon-holes, into which letters for certain merchants, who pay to the post-master a guinea a year, were placed immediately on their arrival; and by this means those merchants were enabled to get those letters sooner than they otherwise would do; it was objected, that as soon as the letters were deposited in the pigeon-holes they ceased to be in the post office, and consequently, that the indictment for stealing from the post office could not be sustained; but the objection was overruled. (p)

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2, contained two clauses one relating to letters &c. with which persons employed under the post office had been "entrusted in consequence of such employment,” the other relating to letters, &c. which in any other manner came into the possession of such persons "whilst so employed." The prisoner, who was indicted under this act for stealing a letter from the post office at Dursley, was employed by the post-mistress at Dursley to carry letters from Dursley to Berkeley, and the evidence tended to show that he had stolen a letter, sent from Cardiff and directed to Dudley, but which had been missent to Dursley. Patteson, J., “I think this letter cannot be said to have come to his hands in consequence of his employment, because he, as a letter carrier from Dursley to Berkeley, would not have a letter addressed from Cardiff to Dudley come to his hands in the course of his duty. However the second section of the act goes on whilst so employed.' The question then is, whether those words relate to time only, or whether they make it essential that the letter should come to his hands in the course of his duty. I am inclined to think that they relate merely to time, because the words 'in consequence of such employment' are used in another part of the section." (q)

Under the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 3, which provided for the stealing mail bags, &c. from "any carriage or from the possession of any person employed to convey letters," in a case where a mail rider had fixed the mail portmanteau on the saddle of his horse, containing four bags of letters, and had slung the bridle of his horse on a staple at the stable-door of the post office about thirty yards from the door of the house, and then went into the house to put on his great coat, and staid about two minutes, and in the interval the robbery took place; it was held to be a stealing from the possession of the mail rider. (r)

A

draft or

check on unstamped paper may be received in evidence, for

collateral pur

In a case upon the 7 Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 2, where it appeared that the check or draft which the prisoner had taken out of the letter was drawn on unstamped paper, it was objected on behalf of the prisoner that it could not be received in evidence, even as a medium to show that he had stolen the letter; but the court overruled the objection, being of opinion that the draft, though unstamped, might be received poses, as to in evidence for collateral purposes, though not for the purpose of re- prove the covering the money contained in it. And they relied upon the cases stealing, &c. in which it had been decided that such an instrument might be given in evidence on an indictment for forging it, or in an action to recover the penalty. (s)

(9) Rex v. Salisbury, 5 C. & P. 155, and MSS. C. S. G. The new act omits the distinction contained in the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143.

(r) Rex v. Robinson, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 485, Wood. B.

(s) Pooley's (second) case, O. B. 1801. 2 Leach, 900, S. C. 1 East, P. C. Addenda, xvii. and 3 Bos, & Pul. 315. And see Morton's case, and Reculist's case, post, Chap. on Forgery.

CHAPTER THE TWENTY-SECOND.

4 Geo. 4,

stealing or embezzling ammunition or other naval or military stores, may be transported, &c.

OF LARCENY AND EMBEZZLEMENT OF NAVAL AND MILITARY

STORES.

THE 4 Geo. 4, c. 53, enacts, "That every person who shall be c. 53. Persons lawfully convicted of stealing or embezzling his Majesty's ammunition, sails, cordage, or naval or military stores, or of procuring, counselling, aiding or abetting any such offender shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for life, or for any term not less than seven years, or to be imprisoned only, or to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour in the common gaol or house of correction for any term not exceeding seven years." (a)

1 Geo. 1, st. 2, c. 25.

9 Geo. 3, c. 30, s. 5. As to the apprehen

stealing or embezzling naval stores.

Some provisions respecting the embezzlement of naval stores, when under the value of twenty shillings, were made by the 1 Geo. 1, stat. 2, c. 25, but that statute was repealed by the 2 Wm. 4, c. 40, s. 35. (b)

The 9 Geo. 3, c. 30, s. 5, relates to the apprehension of persons stealing or embezzling naval stores. It enacts "that for the more sion of persons speedy and effectual bringing to justice persons guilty of stealing or embezzling his Majesty's naval stores, the treasurer, comptroller, surveyor, clerk of the acts, or any commissioners of the navy for the time being, may, from time to time in all places whatsoever, exercise the office of a justice of the peace to all intents and purposes, in causing any person who shall be charged with stealing or embezzling of any naval stores, the property of his Majesty, to be apprehended, committed, and prosecuted for the same; and it requires all constables and other officers to execute and obey all warrants of such persons, touching any of the matters and things thereinbefore contained."

Provision is made by the Annual Mutiny Acts for the punishment of persons embezzling military and naval stores, by the proceedings of a court-martial.

The 5 Vict. c. 12, s. 8, the Annual Mutiny Act, enacts, that "every paymaster or other commissioned officer of her Majesty's forces, or any person employed in the ordnance or commissariat department, or in any manner in the care or distribution of any money, provisions, and 1 Vict. c. 90, s. 5. See ante, p. 135, note (b).

(a) All the other provisions of this statute are repealed by the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 27. No provision is made by the 4 Geo. 4, for the punishment of accessories after the fact, they are therefore punishable under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 28, s. 8 & 9,

(b) The act is wholly repealed, except so much thereof as continues two acts made in the eleventh William the Third, and the fifth of Anne.

« EelmineJätka »