1841.

REGINA V. GEORGE and FORD.

HOUSE-BREAKING.—The prisoners were charged with having broken into the house of James Huggins, and with having stolen therein a pound of bacon and other articles. The prisoner George pleaded guilty, and the prisoner Ford not guilty.

A. and B. were in the same indictment with breaking into the house of

jointly charged

J. H. and stealing his goods. A. pleaded guilty, and B.

On the part of the prosecution, evidence was given that a part of the stolen property was found in the possession pleaded not of the prisoner Ford.

After making his defence, the prisoner Ford proposed to call the prisoner George as a witness, to prove that he (Ford) was not present at the committing of the offence. The prisoner George's plea of guilty had been recorded against him, but no sentence had been passed on him.

COLTMAN, J.-The prisoner George may be examined, if the other prisoner wishes it.

The prisoner George was examined as a witness for the other prisoner.

The jury found the prisoner Ford guilty.

Bros for the prosecution.

guilty, and was tried. A.'s plea of guilty was

recorded, but no sentence had him. B. wished

been passed on

to call A. as a

witness for him: -Held, that he might do so.

[Attorney-Blandy.]

1841.

OXFORD ASSIZES.

(Crown Side.)

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE COLERIDGE.

There is such a unity of interest between husband and wife that ordinarily the wife cannot steal the goods of the husband,

nor can an in

different person

steal the goods

of the husband

by the delivery

of the wife; and

if the wife deliver the goods

of the husband

REGINA v. TOLLETT and TAYLOR.

LARCENY.-The prisoners were charged with stealing

two watches, six handkerchiefs, eleven sovereigns, seventeen half-sovereigns, six crown pieces, and two boxes, the property of Henry Eltham.

It was opened by Keating, for the prosecution, that it had been arranged between the prisoner Taylor and the wife of the prosecutor, that they were to elope together on the night of Saturday the 31st of October, 1840; and that the prisoner Tollett was to take them away to Gloucester in his cart, together with two boxes containing the property of the husband; and that, about midnight on Saturday the 31st of October, the prisoner Taylor came to the prosecutor's house, when the wife delivered to him the boxes containing the property mentioned in the indictment, which he put into Tollett's cart; but that the prosecutor's wife did not elope, because the prosecutor awoke an adulterer it and prevented her; however, instead of taking the pro

to an indifferent person, for

that person to

convert them to

his own use, this is no larceny; but if the person to whom the goods are delivered

by the wife be

is otherwise,

and an adulterer

can be properly convicted of stealing the husband's goods though they be delivered to him by the wife.

If no adultery has actually been committed by the parties, but the goods of the husband are removed from his house by the wife and the intended adulterer, with an intent that the wife should elope with him and live in adultery with him, this taking of the goods is, in point of law, a larceny.

If a wife elope with an adulterer, who takes her clothes with them, it is a larceny; and it is as much a larceny to steal her clothes, which are her husband's property, as it would be to steal anything else that was his property.

If, on the trial of a man for larceny, the jury are satisfied that he took any of the prosecutor's goods, there then being a criminal intention, or there having been a criminal act between the prisoner and the prosecutor's wife, the jury ought to convict, even though the goods were delivered to the prisoner by the prosecutor's wife; but if the jury should think that the prisoner took away the goods merely to get the wife away from her husband as a friend only, and without any reference to any connexion between the prisoner and the wife, either actual or intended, they ought to acquit.

perty to Gloucester, the two prisoners went with it to Abingdon, where they were found with it on the morning of Monday, the 2nd of November.

It was proved by the prosecutor, that, on his going to bed, at about 10 o'clock on the night of the 31st of October, the boxes, which before that had contained his wife's clothes, his own silk handkerchiefs, the two watches, and about £4 in money, were safe in his bed-room, and that he went to sleep; and that about midnight he awoke and saw his wife was up and dressed, and that the boxes were gone. In his cross-examination he said, that his wife and himself had been on bad terms, and that she had threatened to leave him and go to service.

Mrs. Emily Eltham said, "I am the wife of the prosecutor; I know both the prisoners. Before the 30th of October I had twice met the prisoner Taylor at Mrs. Hayward's in Oxford; I do not know that it is a house of ill fame; we were in a bed-room together both times, for as much as half an hour each time; nothing improper passed between us on either occasion; I went to tell him when I was ready to go away with him; it was arranged between us that I was to be ready by eleven o'clock on Saturday night the 31st of October; the boxes and money were to be ready; I told him no amount; he said he should come and take the boxes and me also; we were to go to Gloucester, and live together as man and wife; Taylor told me to bring all the money I could; I put more money into one of the boxes, it was £17; it was my husband's money. On the night of Saturday the 31st of October, Taylor came at twelve o'clock; he asked me to fetch the boxes, I said I could not; Taylor fetched them out of the room in which my husband was asleep; I was dressed; I had not gone to bed, and should have then gone off with Taylor, but my husband awoke, and that prevented me. Tollett had told me that Taylor had arranged with him to take me and my things to Gloucester."

1841.

REGINA

V.

TOLLETT.

1841.

REGINA

บ.

TOLLETT.

It was proved by Mr. Reynolds, the landlord of the King's Head and Bell at Abingdon, that the prisoners, whom he had known before, came to his inn in a cart with the boxes, at half-past six on the morning of Sunday the 1st of November; that they stayed there till Monday, when the prosecutor's father came and gave them into the custody of the police.

It was proved by the father of the prosecutor, that, in consequence of information given by the wife of the prosecutor, he followed the prisoners to Abingdon, and found them with the boxes, of which the contents were "all right;" and that in the boxes he found all the articles mentioned in the indictment. In his cross-examination he stated, that he found both the boxes locked, and that he unlocked them with keys given to him by the wife of the prosecutor, and found in them (besides the articles already mentioned) a quantity of woman's wearing apparel.

It was also proved, that the prisoner Tollett was seen near the prosecutor's house at one o'clock on the morning of Sunday the 1st of November.

The boxes were produced: they were large heavy boxes.

COLERIDGE, J.-I think that there is no evidence to affect the prisoner Tollett as a principal.

Carrington, for the prisoner Taylor.-Since the decision of the case of Rex v. Tolfree it is impossible to deny, that, if a married woman go off with an adulterer, and the guilty parties, at the time of the elopement, steal the money and plate of the husband, this is a larceny in the adulterer; although, before the decision of that case, an opinion had been not only entertained but acted upon, which went the length of holding that a person who took the goods of the husband by the delivery of the wife would not, under any circumstances, be guilty of larceny, and that it was immaterial whether the prisoner and the wife had

been guilty of adultery or not (a). However, taking the case of Rex v. Tolfree to its full extent, I submit that there

1841.

REGINA

v.

TOLLETT.