"Mary Levy was also sworn, and deposed: That she likewise occupied a room in said house, from defendant, for the last fourteen years, at 1s. per week, as a weekly tenant; that she had no lodgers. "Counsel for the defendant submitted that the provisions of the statute did not apply to a case like the present, and that the defendant was not a lodging-house keeper within the true meaning of the statute, and that the statute did not apply to the case of unfurnished rooms being let in tenements under circumstances like those deposed to. "We, the undersigned justices, being of opinion that the statute did apply and that the house was a common lodging-house within the provisions of the statute, and that the defendant was keeper thereof, who was proved and admitted to be in the beneficial receipt of the rents, and who had received notice to register previous to the issuing of the summons, convicted the defendant in a mitigated penalty of 2s. 6d., as it was conceded that the defendant had not wilfully violated the law.

"The defendant having expressed himself aggrieved at our determination, has, pursuant to the provisions of the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, called upon us to state a special case for the Court of Common Pleas, and we accordingly submit to this court the question whether or not such conviction was warranted upon the facts deposed.

"J. W. O'DONNELL. "D. M'DERMOTT.

Sidney, Q. C. and J. A. Curran for the appellant. The Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847 enacted that it should not be lawful to keep or use as a public lodging-house within the limits of the borough any house rated at less than 107. (unless a licensed victualling house), or any house of any value whatever, unless such house be registered as a lodginghouse in a book kept for that purpose. It also provides that every house shall be deemed a public lodging-house within the meaning of that Act in which persons shall be harboured or lodged for hire for a single night, or for less than a week at one time, or any part of which shall be let for any time less than a week. We contend that a man cannot be said to be "harboured or lodged" by one who does not reside in the house with him; and that such is the proper view appears yet more plainly from the form of the application to be registered as a lodginghouse keeper, given by the bye-law of 1851, made in pursuance of the last-mentioned Act, and the Dublin Improvement Act 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 97). This form actually contains a statement of the number of members of the applicant's family who reside with him in the house. The requirements, too, of the bye-laws are such as could not be carried out by a landlord not residing on the premises, inasmuch as they relate to sweeping the rooms, opening the windows, whitewashing the walls, &c. The Dublin Improvement Acts Amendment Act (27 & 28 Vict. (Local and Personal), c. 305, s. 24) extends the operation of the laws, rules, and regulations for the time being in force in the city of Dublin, relating to the registration and regulation of public lodging-houses, by enacting that every house or part of a house, let for shorter periods than four weeks at rents not exceeding three shillings a-week, no matter what the rating of the house, shall be deemed a public lodging-house.(a) We contend, however, that there is nothing in the Act to extend its operation to premises which the

(a) 27 & 28 Vict. (Local and Personal) c. 305, s. 24:-From and after the commencement of this Act, any and every house, or part of a house, usually or occasionally let in separate floors, rooms or other tenements for human habitation, for any shorter period than four weeks, at rents not exceeding three shillings per week, shall be deemed a public lodging-house, irrespective of the valuation of such house or part of the house for assessment to the relief of the

[C. CAS. R.

landlord has no control over, and which are not lodgings at all.

Dowse, Q. C. and Norwood, in support of the conviction.-The bye-laws are not admissible to control the meaning of the Act of Parliament; besides it is not enough to show that the bye-laws of 1851 are inapplicable to the case of a house let in tenements where the landlord does not reside upon the premises; for the more recent Act 27 & 28 Vict. (Local and Personal), c. 305, s. 24, upon which this conviction is rested, extends the operation of the previous Act to all houses let in the required manner, and to all persons in the beneficial receipt of the rents thereof.

MONAHAN, C. J., delivered the judgment of the court. Having stated the facts of the case, his Lordship proceeded: The Legislature has declared that a house so let shall be deemed to be a public lodging-house, and the person in the beneficial receipt of the rents thereof, the keeper of a public thereto; and the fact that the Legislaiure used lodging-house, and liable to the laws relating certain words of definition shows that it was intended to alter the law in this respect. The fact, however, is, that this gentleman has a house set in separate rooms, but the dominion of the rest of the house is in him. We do not give any opinion as to how many and what bye-laws are applicable to a case like the present, but merely decide that the appellant is the keeper of a public lodging-house, and as such bound to register it. We must, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

A

Conviction affirmed without costs. Attorney for the appellant, C. Fitzgerald. Attorney for the respondent, J. Morgan.

CROWN CASES RESERVED. Reported by JOHN THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

Saturday, Nov. 14, 1868.

(Before BOVILL, C. J., CHANNELL, B., BYLES, BLACKBURN, and LUSH, JJ.)

REG. v. WILLIAM DIPROSE. Embezzlement-Friendly society-Secretary. secretary of a friendly society under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, in which no trustee had ever been appointed, was convicted on an indictment for embezzlement, prior to the coming into operation of the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116, and the indictment described him as the servant of the treasurer, and also as the servant of C. (a member) and others.

Held, that the conviction was wrong.

Case reserved at the General Quarter Sessions of the peace holden for the county of Kent on the 3rd July 1868.

William Diprose was indicted and tried for embezzlement.

In the first count of the indictment he was alleged to be clerk and servant to Thomas John Coman. In the second to be clerk and servant to James Crowson and others.

The evidence showed that the prisoner was a member of the Ightham Hope Lodge of Odd Feldestitute poor, and shall be liable, subject to, and governed by the laws, rules, and regulations for the time being in force within the borough of Dublin relating to and for the registration and regulation of public lodging-houses; and the person in the beneficial receipt of the rents of such house or part of a house shall be deemed to be the keeper of such public lodging-house, and as such keeper liable to the like laws, rules, regulations, and penalties.

lows, a friendly society founded in 1860, whose rules had been duly certified by the registrar of friendly societies as being in conformity with law pursuant to the stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63.

The first rule stated that the society had for its object the raising of funds by entrance fees, subscriptions, fines, and interest on capital for the purposes of insuring sums of money to defray the expenses of burial of deceased members and of their wives, for rendering assistance to members sick and unable to work, for supplying medicine and medical attendance to members, and for giving assistance to the widows and orphans of deceased members.

The third rule prescribed that all moneys received on account of entrance fees, subscriptions, donations, interest, or capital and fines were to be applied in carrying out the above stated purposes, and paying the expenses of management.

The fourth rule stated that the business was to be conducted by a committee of management consisting of five officers of whom the secretary was not one. The fifth rule directed the members to elect three trustees and a treasurer.

The twelfth rule was in the following words: That the permanent secretary shall attend all meetings of the lodge, take minutes of the proceedings thereof, and keep a correct account of the expenditure of the lodge, prepare all summonses in due time, attend the auditors to point out and explain anything they may require respecting the accounts, balance such accounts when required by the officers or a majority of the lodge. He shall prepare all documents for the district and board of directors, and make the annual and other returns to the registrar as rerequired by the Friendly Societies Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 63), and for his services he shall receive such sum per annum as may be agreed upon, payable out of the management fund. He shall pay over to the treasurer, within five days after each lodge night, all money he may have received, or be fined one shilling.

The society consisted of many members. No trustees had ever been appointed. Mr. Thomas John Coman was treasurer of the society at the time of the trial, and had been ever since 1861.

The prisoner William Diprose was appointed permanent secretary in the year 1862, and remained in that office till some time in Jan. 1868, and had a salary from the society of 37. a year. The prisoner performed the duties of secretary laid down in the rule 12.

In Dec. 1867 the prisoner received certain subscriptions and other sums of money from various members for the use of the society, for which he did not account, but fraudulently appropriated them to his own use.

It was contended by counsel on behalf of the prisoner, that the prisoner being a member of the society, and there being no trustees, he was a partner in the society, and as such entitled to a share in its funds, and could not be convicted of embezzling money in which he had such an interest. Secondly, that he could not properly be convicted on the indictment, on the ground that there was no evidence that he was clerk or servant to Thomas John Coman, the treasurer, or to the other members of the society collectively, of whom James Crowson, the person named in the second count, was one.

The statute 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, and the cases, Reg. v. Taffs, 4 Cox C. C. 169, March 1850; Reg. v. Proud, L. & C. 97; and the cases collated in vol. 2 of Russell on Crimes, p. 432 were referred to.

The jury convicted the prisoner, but as the court entertained some doubt, judgment was deferred, and the prisoner let out on bail.

The opinion of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved is requested. Whether the objections taken on behalf of the prisoner ought to have prevailed so far as to have prevented a conviction on either count?

JOHN G. TALBOT, Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions.

[C. CAS. R.

| Hayman for the prisoner.-The conviction cannot be sustained. This conviction took place before the 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116, and must be determined by the law as it stood previously thereto. The prisoner was not the servant of Coman, the treasurer, as alleged in the first count, or of Crowson and others, the members of the society, as alleged in the second count. The society was formed under the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63 (An Act to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Friendly Societies). By sect. 18 of that statute all the property in such societies is vested in the trustee or trustees for the time being. Here no trustees have ever been appointed. It is true that sect. 17 provides that where no trustee shall have been appointed in societies established under any of the repealed Acts, the treasurer or other person who has custody of moneys of such society shall be taken to be a trustee within the meaning of this Act. That provision, however, has no applica tion to this society, as it was not established under any of the repealed statutes, but under the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63. There is no provision that vests the property in the treasurer or any person other than the trustees; and, that being so, the property remains in the mem bers conjointly, and the prisoner could not be convicted of embezzling it. In Reg. v. Loose (29 L. J., 133, M. C.; 8 Cox. C. C. 302) it was held that a trustee of a friendly society, under the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, could not be convicted of larceny or as a fraudulent bailee for having misappropriated money which, by a resolution of the society, he was directed to take to a bank. The money was laid in the indictment as the property of the treasurer, but the court held that the money was not the money of the treasurer after he had parted with it. As to the second count, in which the money is laid as the property of Crowson and others, that is bad on the authority of Reg. V. James Taffs, 4 Cox C. C. 169. The only difference between Tars case and the present is, that in Taffs' case the society was unenrolled, but for the purpose of this objection that makes no difference. There Maule, J. said, "He (the prisoner) is alleged to be the servant to James Dean and others, but he otherwise servant to James Dean and others than as interested with them in the fund, and as doing something for the benefit of the whole society. Dean and others are in no special position as masters to him; he is rather in the nature of a partner having an advantage over the other partners by reason of an allowance to him for doing more of the work than the others do. The money is not the money of James Dean and others except in so far as it is the money of the prisoner and James Dean, and other persons. Before the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64. 8. 14, enabled the persons framing an indictment to describe partners as "others," the names of all the members of this society must have been set out. If the name of the prisoner or of any other member had been omitted in the enumeration of the members there would have been a failure in the proof. If the name of the prisoner had been inserted, the indictment would have been bad on its face, for it would have charged the prisoner with embezzling his own money." Some obscurity was introduced in the court below by the citation of Reg v. Proud, but in a subsequent case Martin, B. said that the property there was laid in the trustees.

по

Barrow, for the prosecution.-The conviction was right. In Jenson's case, 1 Moo. C. C. 434, it was held that the clerk of a savings bank was properly described as clerk to the trustees, although elected by the managers. So here the prisoner may be described as the clerk of the treasurer if he was appointed in that capacity by the members of the society; and rule 12 seems to make him in a sense

the servant of the treasurer. In Reg. v. Burgess, 32 L. J. 185, M. C., it was held that one of the committee of a co-operative society who stole money from the till which had been placed there by a Servant employed to sell the goods, and who was accountable for the money, might be convicted on an indictment which charged him with stealing the moneys of B.

BOVILL, C. J.-We are of opinion that this objection ought to prevail. Such an objection is now removed by the Act of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116. It cannot be said that the secretary of such a society is a servant of the treasurer's, as alleged in the first count. They are both servants of the society. Then upon the second count, the moment you make the allegation that he was the servant of Crowson and others the indictment is bad, for it is, as Maule, J. said in Reg v. Taffs, the same as if you had set out the names of all the members, and among them would have been the prisoner's own, and that would have been to have described him as the servant of himself. The case is within Reg. v. Tuys, and the conviction must be quashed.

The other Judges concurred.

Conviction quashed.

REG. v. JOSEPH DIXON.

Embezzlement-Servant or agent. Prisoner was engaged by U. at weekly wages to manage a shop. U. then assigned all his estate and effects to R., and a notice was served on prisoner to act as the agent of R. in the management of the shop. For fourteen days afterwards R. received from U. the shop Toneys. Then the shop money was taken by U. as before. Prisoner received his weekly wages from U. daring the whole time. Some time after a compositiondeed was executed by R. and U., and U.'s creditors under sect. 192 of the Bankruptcy Act, by which R. reconveyed the estate and effects to U.; but this deed was not registered until after the embezzlement charged against the prisoner :

[C. CAS. R.

There was an execution in the hands of the sheriff against the goods of Urquhart, and to protect the property, the following notice was prepared by Robinson's attorney, and handed to prisoner with an explanation of its object:

Under and by virtue of a certain deed of assignment, dated the 7th April 1868, and made between Arthur Urquhart, of Sunderland, in the county of Durham, grocer and provision merchant, of the one part, and Robert Robinson, of the same place, wholesale druggist and drysalter, of the other part, whereby the whole of the estate and effects of the said Arthur Urquhart were conveyed and assured to the said Robert Robinson absolutely, to be applied and administered for the benefit of the creditors of the said Arthur Urquhart. We, the undersigned, being the attorneys for the said Robert Robinson, do hereby authorise and emtake and keep possession of all the estate and effects of the power you, as the agent of the said Robert Robinson, to said Arthur Urquhart which are now in or upon the dwelling house, shop, and premises in Coronation-street, Sunderland, Dated this 8th April 1868.-Yours, &c., aforesaid, hitherto occupied by the said Arthur Urquhart.

GRAHAM and GRAHAM,

Attorneys for the said Robert Robinson.

To Mr. Joseph Dixon,

Agent, Sunderland.

This paper was given up soon after the 21st April by prisoner to Urquhart and destroyed.

After the fourteen days mentioned the money was taken by Urquhart as before, prisoner continuing to receive from Urquhart during the whole period his weekly wages. Before the expiration of twentyeight days the deed of assignment was registered, namely, on the 21st April. On the 6th July 1868 a composition deed was executed by Robert Robinson and three-fourths of the creditors whose debts were 10. and upwards, and Urquhart, reconveying the property to Urquhart. The iustalments due under this deed had been paid. This deed was not registered until the 3rd Aug.

On the 21st July a marked half sovereign was sent to the shop by Urquhart through a strange hand, and on Urquhart returning to the shop and not finding it in the till, a policeman was called in and the prisoner produced it and admitted having

taken it.

Case reserved for the opinion of this court by the chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County Palatine of Durham.

Joseph Dixon was tried before me at the last Michaelmas Quarter Sessions for the County of Durham for embezzling half a sovereign.

The indictment contained two counts:

First, for embezzling half a sovereign, the property of Arthur Urquhart.

Secondly, for embezzling half a sovereign the property of Robert Robinson.

Counsel for the prisoner applied that the prose cutor should elect, and I so decided, reserving power either to amend the name of the owner of the property if I had such power, or to grant a case on the point if necessary.

The prosecutor elected to proceed on the count for embezzling the half sovereign, the property of Arthur Urquhart.

It was proved that prisoner was employed by Urquhart, at 20s. per week to manage a grocer's shop kept by him, he being himself a carpenter. On the 6th April 1868 Urquhart was in difficulties, and made an assignment of his goods, &c., to his brother-in-law, Robert Robinson, for the benefit of his creditors. For fourteen days Robinson received from Urquhart all the moneys received in the shop.

was taken out of him.

2nd. That the first deed vested the property in Robinson, that the notice served by Robinson's attorney never having been revoked by Robinson or any demand made for the half sovereign or for any money, and the composition deed not having been registered until after the offence was committed the half sovereign was Robinson's, and prisoner could not be convicted of embezzling Robinson's money

under these circumstances.

if the court held that the prisoner could not be conI reserved these points on the understanding that of embezzling Robinson's, the count was to be victed of embezzling Urquhart's money but could be amended by substituting Robinson's name, or the count which stood originally in the indictment was to be restored if the court thought I had the power to do either.

Prisoner was sentenced, but is now out on bail. JOHN R. DAVISON, Chairman.

Hopwood, for the prisoner. The prisoner was not the servant of Urquhart at the time of the embezzlement. Under the conveyance by Urquhart of all his estate and effects to Robinson and the notice to the prisoner, the prisoner became Robinson's servant and continued so at the time of the embezzlement. The reassignment of the estate to Urquhart did not come into operation until regis

tration of the deed which took place after the embezzlement, and besides the prisoner had no notice of the reconveyance.

Greenhow, for the prosecution, was not called upon to argue.

BOVILL, C. J.-In this case there is no doubt. The facts when uderstood, do not warrant the argument. Urquhart assigned all his estate and effects to his brother-in-law, Robinson, and notice of that was given to the prisoner. After that there was a reassignment of the property by Robinson to Urquhart, and upon that the property revested in Urquhart. The prisoner was the servant of Urquhart receiving his wages from him, and the money embezzled was the property of Urquhart and of no other person. The indictment was therefore right. The other judges concurred.

Conviction affirmed.

REG. v. ELIZA DAVIS. False pretences-Evidence.

The indictment alleged that the prisoner was living apart from her husband under a deed of separation, and was in receipt of an income from her husband, and he was not to be liable for her debts, yet that she falsely pretended to the prosecutor that she was living with her husband, and was authorised to apply for and receive from the prosecutor goods on the account and credit of her husband, and that her husband was then ready aud willing to pay for the goods.

The evidence at the trial was that the prisoner went to the prosecutor's shop and selected the goods, and said that her husband would give a cheque for them as soon as they were delivered, and that she would send the person bringing the goods to her husband's office, ana that he would give a cheque. When all the goods were delivered the prisoner told the man who delivered them to go to her husband's office, and that he would pay for them. The man went, but could not see her husband, and ascertained that there was a deed of separation between the prisoner and her husband, which was shown to him. He communicated what he had learnt to the prisoner, who denied the deed of separation. The goods were shortly after removed and pawned by the prisoner. The deed of separation between the prisoner and her husband was put in evidence, by which it was stipulated that the husband was not to pay her debts; and it was proved that she was living apart from her husband, and receiving an annuity from him, and that she was also cohabiting with

another man:

Held, that the false pretences charged were sufficiently proved by this evidence.

Case reserved for the opinion of this court at the general Quarter Session of the Peace for the County of Surrey, on the 20th Oct. 1868.

Eliza Davis was tried and convicted under the following indictment for obtaining goods by false pretences:

The jurors, &c., present, &c., that Eliza Davis was living separate and apart from her husband, one Alfred Allen Davis, and was in receipt of a certain income, provided for the said Eliza Davis by her said husband, as and for her separate maintenance and support, and had voluntarily agreed with the said Alfred Allen Davis and certain other persons, to wit, Fanny Medland, then being trustee to a certain deed of separation between her and her said husband, that he, the said Alfred Allen Davis, should not be liable for the payment of any debts to be contracted by the said Eliza Davis after the execution of the said deed. And the

jurors, &c., present, &c., that the said Eliza Davis, well knowing the premises, and being an evil-disposed person, and contriving and intending to cheat and defraud, on the 4th day of Aug. 1868, unlawfully and knowingly did falsely pretend to one James Michael Utton, a servant of one William Waine, that she, the said Eliza Davis, was then

[C. CAS. R.

living under the protection and control of the said Alfred Allen Davis, that she, the said Eliza Davis, was then anthorised to apply for and receive of and from the said William Waine divers goods to a large amount, to wit, to the amount of 115. for and on the account and credit of the said Alfred Allen Davis: that the said Alfred Allen Davis was then ready and willing to pay for the goods which she, the said Eliza Davis, should obtain from the said William Waine, and that she, the said Eliza Davis, then wanted the said goods, for the purpose of furnishing a certain house, then being in the occupation of her said husband, by means, &c.

At the close of the case for the prosecution, it was objected, on behalf of the defendant, that none of the allegations in the indictment were legally supported by the following evidence given in that behalf by the said James Michael Utton:

On the 4th Aug. last the female prisoner, Eliza Davis, called at Mr. Waine's shop. I served her. She selected deposit, she said: "It is a strictly cash transaction, my goods to the amount of 1151. I then asked her to pay a

husband will give you a cheque as soon as the goods ar delivered." I asked her name, she gave her name Mrs. Davis, 4, Caroline-cottages, St. Anne's-road, Brixton-road, and added, "As soon as you deliver the goods, I will send you to my husband's office, 10, Basinghall-street, and he will give you a cheque." She added, "My husband is an acc tioneer, and you must serve me well, as he knows the value of the goods." The goods were delivered between the 4th and 11th August. I let her have the goods on the represen tation that she was the wife of Mr. Davis, the auctioneer. On Tuesday 11th August, I presented the bill to female pri soner. I asked her how I was to get the money. She said, "Go to my husband's office, 10, Basinghall-street, and be will pay you." I went there, but could not see her hus band. From information there received, I went to Mr. Downing, solicitor, in Basinghall-street. He showed me a deed of separation, and gave me further information. I returned to female prisoner. I told her I had been to the office, and they had repudiated all claim, and told me there was a deed of separation, and that she had been living separate from her husband for four years. Prisoner said, No; there is no such thing." I said, "Now are you sat you never signed anything which exonerates Mr. Davis from paying your debts." She said, "No; never." She s further, "I will give you a letter to Mr. Downing, and be will pay you the money." She wrote a letter, and I took it to Mr. Downing, but did not obtain the money. I went back to prisoner the same day. She promised to call on Mr. Waine next morning (the 13th August), at ten o'clock, She failed to come. I then went to 4, Caroline-cottages, a. found the house shut up and deserted. I obtained admittance by borrowing the key of the next house, and found a portion of the goods obtained had been taken away, in valde about 181. I took away the remainder. I believed that her husband was living with her when I served her.

46

separation dated 20th December 1865, made between The prosecution put in and proved a deed of the said Eliza Davis and the said Alfred Allen Davis, and a certain trustee therein named, by and the said parties thereto, which provides (inter alia). on behalf of, the said Eliza Davis, and executed by that in the event of the husband being bound to pay any debt incurred by her, he should be enpowered to deduct same from the annual allowance made to her under its provisions.

Further proof was given that since the execution of such deed the said Eliza Davis had lived separate and apart from her said husband, Alfred Allen Davis, and had received by monthly payments the annuity of 100l. per annum, covenanted to be paid by the said Alfred Allen Davis under the said deed of separation.

Evidence was also adduced that on 1st Aug. 1848 the said Eliza Davis (accompanied by a certain man) had entered into an agreement to hold ard occupy for the term of three years, No. 4, Caroline cottages, St. Ann's-road, Brixton-road, the house to which the goods obtained were taken, and that she had left the said house speedily after the receipt of the said goods, carrying with her a portion of the said goods, and that she the said Eliza Davis pawned the major part of such goods so carried away.

had lived with the man before mentioned as his Proof was likewise given that the said Eliza Davis wife in one lodging, from 18th July to 6th Aug. 31st Aug. 1868. 1868, and in another lodging from 6th Aug. to about

It was contended for the prisoner that there was a