purporting to authorize, either by endorsement or by delivery, the possessor of such document to transfer or receive any goods thereby represented or therein mentioned or referred to:"(g)

"The term valuable security' shall include any order, Exchequer acquittance, or other security whatsoever entitling or *evidencing the title of any person [*267 or body corporate to any share or interest in any public stock or fund, whether of the United Kingdom, or of Great Britain or of Ireland, or of any foreign State, or in any fund of any body corporate, company, or society, whether within the United Kingdom or in any foreign State or country, or to any deposit in any bank, and shall also include any debenture, deed, bond, bill, note, warrant, order, or other security whatsoever for money or for payment of money, whether of the United Kingdom, or of Great Britain, or of Ireland, or of any foreign State, and any document of title to lands or goods as hereinbefore defined." (h)

In a case upon the 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, s. 3, where the prisoner was convicted of stealing a note, by which the maker promised to pay to the prosecutor or order a sum of money, but which the prosecutor had not indorsed, all the judges held that its not being indorsed was immaterial.(i) In a case upon the same statute where the prisoners were indicted for stealing a bill of exchange, it appeared that, when the bill was stolen from the prosecutor at Manchester, two names only were indorsed upon it; but that when it was negotiated by one of the prisoners, at Leicester, a third name was added to the two other indorsers; upon which it was objected, on behalf of the prisoners, that this being an indictment at Leicester, for then and there stealing a bill of exchange, whereon were indorsed the names of the two first indorsers, it was not supported by the evidence of a bill with an additional name indorsed thereon, at the time the bill was negotiated by one of the prisoners, in Leicester. But the prisoners were convicted; and upon a case reserved, the judges all agreed that the addition of the third name made no difference; that it was the same bill that was originally stolen; and, therefore, that the conviction was proper.(j)

In a case upon the 15 Geo. 2, c. 13, relating to embezzlements by servants of the Bank of England, which will be mentioned in a subsequent chapter, a prisoner was indicted for stealing certain bills, commonly called Exchequer bills; and as it appeared that the person who signed them, on the part of the government, was not legally authorized so to do, the Court held that they were not good Exchequer bills, and the prisoner was consequently acquitted.(k)

It has been holden that the paper and stamps of the notes of a firm of country bankers, which had been paid by their correspondent banker in London, and which were re-issuable by the country bankers, were the valuable property of such country bankers while they were in transitu for the purpose of being re-issued. In some counts the prisoner was charged with stealing "promissory notes;" and in others. he was charged with stealing one hundred and thirty-five pieces of paper, each being respectively stamped with a stamp of four shillings, value four [*268 shillings, we.ng the stump directed by the statute in such case made and provided ou every promissory note for payment to the bearer on demand of any sum of money not exceeding, &c; one hundred and eighty-four pieces of paper, each being respectively stamped with a stamp of one shilling, &c.; and seventy-seven pieces of paper, each being respectively stamped with a stamp of one shilling and sixpence,

(g) This clause is taken from the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39, s. 4, with the addition of "transfer" and valuable thing," from the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 5, and the new words in italics, (h) This clause is taken from the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 5, and 9 Geo. 4, c. 55, s. 5 (I.). It extends the former enactments to funds of bodies corporate, companies, and societies in foreign countries, and to deposits "in any Bank," instead of "in any Savings' Bank." The last words in this clause are introduced in order that the terms "valuable security" may include all the matters contained under the previous definitions of document of title to goods," and document of title to lands;" so that wherever the terms "valuable security" occur in the subsequent parts of the Act, all the matters contained in those definitions may be included. As to document of title to lands, see ante, p. 264.

(1) Anon., 2 East P. C. c. 16, s. 37, p. 598.

(j) Rex e. Austin, 2 East P. C. c. 16, s. 37, p. 602.

(*) Aslett's (first) case, 2 Leach 954.

&c., all the said pieces of paper being so stamped as aforesaid, and being the property, &c.; and each and every of the said stamps being then available, and of full force and effect, against the peace, &c." It appeared that the paid notes in question were made up into a parcel by the London bankers, and sent by the mail to the country bankers, who never received them, and were under the necessity of issuing other notes on fresh stamps in their stead. Many of the paid notes, so missed, were traced to the possession of the prisoner, under very strong circumstances of suspicion. The prisoner's counsel objected that the charge being for a larceny, the law required that the property stolen should of some value; that the notes, having been paid, were become, both with respect to the money they were intended to secure, as well as to the stamps, mere waste paper; that their former value was extinct; and that before they could again become valuable property, it was neces sary they should have been actually re-issued by the firm of the country bank. And it was objected, as to the counts for stealing the stamped pieces of paper, that they could not be sustained; as the stamps, having been issued, were not at the time when they were taken in any way saleable as stamps; that their operation, as stamps, was, at that time, completely at an end; and that they would not reassume the character of stamps, until the notes, to which they were affixed, had undergone the process of being re-issued. The jury having found the prisoner guilty, the case was referred to the twelve judges, whose opinion was afterwards delivered by Grose, J., to the following effect:-"The question submitted in this case to the consideration of the judges was, whether the paper and the stamps are, under the circumstances of the case, the subjects of larceny at common law; or, in other terms, whether they are the property of, and of any value to Messrs. Large & Co. (the country bankers), who were unquestionably the owners of them. These gentlemen had paid for the paper, the printing and the stamps of these papers, which once existed, both in character and in value, as promissory notes. Their character and value, as promissory notes, were certainly extinct at the time they were stolen; but, even in this state, they bore about them a capability of being legally restored to their former character and pristine value. It was a capability in which these owners had a special interest and property. The act of re-issuing them would have immediately manifested their value as papers, for it would have saved their owners the expense of reprinting other notes, and of purchasing other stamps, to which expense, it was proved, they were put, on their being deprived of these papers, by the crime of the prisoner. In what sense or meaning, therefore, can it be said that these stamped papers were not the valuable property of their owners? They were, indeed, only of value to those owners; but it is enough that they were of *269] value to them: their value as to the rest of the world is immaterial. The judges, therefore, are of opinion, that to the extent of the price of the paper, the printing, and the stamps, they were valuable property belonging to the prosecutors; and that the prisoner has been legally convicted."(1)

The halves of country bank-notes, sent in a letter, are goods and chattels. The indictments in some counts charged the prisoner with embezzling pieces of paper of the value of one penny, and in other counts, "pieces of paper partly written and partly printed," bearing stamps, the values of which were specified: all the counts charged them to be "of the goods and chattels" of the prosecutor. A stamp distributor had remitted to the prosecutor, by post, the first halves of the country bank-notes, to the amount of £190, and evidence was given to show that this letter was received by the prisoner, and that he had embezzled the notes; it was objected that these halves of country notes were not goods and chattels if the notes had been entire, they would have been choses in action, not goods and chattels, and in their present state they were of no value. Bosanquet, J., "They might have been made of value to the prosecutor, by his putting the two halves together." After citing Clarke's case, his lordship added, "I will consider of the objection, and if I

(1) Clarke's case, 2 Leach 1036, and R. & R. 181. In a MS. note of the judgment in this case, with which the author has been favored, the principle is thus stated, If a chattel be valuable to the possessor, though not saleable, and of no value to any one besides, it may still be the subject of a larceny."

should think it is a valid one the prisoner shall have the benefit of it." The prisoner was afterwards sentenced to be transported.(m)

Re-issuable notes, if they cannot be called valuable securities while in the Lands of their makers, may be called goods and chattels. The first count charged the prisoner with receiving thirty pieces of paper of great value, to wit, of £30 each, the said pieces of paper being [stamped with a stamp value 5d., the same being the stamp directed and required by the statute in that case made and provided, on .every promissory note for payment to bearer on demand for every sum of money not exceeding £1 18.] of the goods and chattels of J. Whitehead and others. Second count the same, but substituting the words "being duly stamped as directed and required by the statute in such case made and provided," instead of the words between the brackets. Third count, receiving "thirty valuable securities, commonly called promissory notes, each of the said valuable securities being for the payment of the sum of £1, and of the value of £1, of the property of J. Whitehead and others, and the said valuable securities at the several times of committing the several felonies last above mentioned, being of great value, to wit, £30." Fourth, for receiving "thirty other valuable securities of great value, to wit, of the value of £30." Neither of the two last counts stated that the moneys secured by the valuable securities remained due and unsatisfied. The prosecutors, Whitehead and Co., were country bankers, and were in the habit of issuing promissory notes of £10, £5, and £1; [*270 the two former were made payable at the house of Glyn and Co., in Lombard Street, the £1 only in the country, but were occasionally paid when presented to Glyn and Co. The course of business at that house was, at the close of every day to roll up in a bundle all the notes which had been paid in the course of the day, and to lock up these bundles until an opportunity offered of delivering them to one of the parties when in town, or of sending a parcel of them to be reissued. On the 21st of November, 1827, a large bag was delivered at the house of Glyn and Co., to one of the partners of the house of Whitehead and Co., containing the bundles of several days, and he was robbed of the bag at the door of Furnival's Inn coffee-house when about setting off for the country by the mail, and some of the notes were traced to the prisoner under circumstances which satisfied the jury of his guilty knowledge in receiving them, and they found him guilty. And, upon a case reserved, it was contended that in order to bring a case within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 5, the notes must be outstanding, and the money purporting to be payable on them must be due and unpaid. In this case the notes had been satisfied, and were in the hands of the makers; they could not therefore be valuable securities of the value they purported to be, and had indeed been when in circulation. Besides, there was no averment that the money was due and unpaid, nor could these notes be said to be goods and chattels of the value of the stamps, or of any other value; they were, in fact, of none; but, supposing them to be of value, and the property of the owners, they could not be called goods and chattels. The judges, ten of whom were present, held the conviction right; some doubted whether the notes could properly be called valuable securities; but if not, they all thought that they were goods and chattels.(n)1

In order to come within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 5, an instrument must have been a perfect and complete bill of exchange, promissory note, &c, and if the sum or the drawer were omitted, it was not such a security as was included in that section; and although such imperfect instruments might properly be described as pieces of paper, each having a stamp, yet the prisoner could not be convicted of stealing them, unless the prosecutor had such a possession of them as would have enabled

(m) Rex v. Mead, 4 C. & P. 535 (19 E. C. L. R.). See Reg. v. Jones, 1 Den. C. C. 551, post, "False Pretences," where the prisoner obtained the halves of a £5 note, which were sent in two different letters, and were described as "two pieces of paper" of the goods and chattels of the prosecutor, and this was held to be correct. (n) Rex v. Vyse, R. & M. C. C. R. 218.

1 Bank bills complete in form, but not issued, are the property of the bank; and may be so treated in criminal proceedings, for receiving them with knowledge of their having been stolen: People v. Wiley, 3 Hill 194.

VOL. II.-14

6.

him to maintain trespass. The first count charged the prisoner with stealing "ten bills of exchange for the payment of £500 each, of the value of £500 each," the property of Mr. Astley. The second count, "ten orders for the payment of £500 each, and of the value of £500 each." The third count, "ten securities for the payment of £500 each, and of the value of £500 each." And the fourth count, "ten pieces of paper, each being respectively stamped with a stamp of six shillings, and of the value of six shillings," &c. It appeared that in consequence of an advertisement offering to lend money upon bills of exchange or other personal security, the prosecutor, who had occasion for a sum of money, had an interview with the prisoner, who told him that he could accommodate him with £5000, at £6 per cent. The prisoner produced from his pocket-book ten *blank stamps, and the *271] prosecutor wrote on each of them the words, " Payable at Messrs. Praed and Co., 189 Fleet street, London." Nothing was written on the stamps at that time but these words; the prisoner took the stamps away. The prosecutor saw him again several days afterwards; he said the prosecutor had omitted to sign his name, and he again produced the ten pieces of paper; the prosecutor signed them, and wrote "accepted" on each of them, and gave them to the prisoner again; he said he would send the money in a few days by the mail, but it was never sent. For the prisoner it was contended that the papers taken were not the subject of larceny, and that the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, only made perfect and available instruments the subject of larceny; and secondly, that there was no felony, because the paper stamps being the property of the prisoner, no trespass was committed in taking them. Littledale, J. With respect to the first, second, and third counts, I am of opinion that when these acceptances were taken from the prosecutor, they were neither bills of exchange, orders, or securities for money." After stating the facts, the learned judge proceeded, "These papers were again taken away by the prisoner, and it appears to me, that, when they were so taken away, they were neither bills of exchange nor orders for the payment of money, but were only in a sort of embryo state, there being the means of making them bills of exchange. The 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 5, enacts, that if any person shall steal any bill, note, warrant, order, or other security whatsoever for money, or for payment of money, whether of this kingdom or any other state,' the party is to be punished as he would be for stealing a chattel of the like value. Now, how could this be said to be of any value? and of what value can it be said to be? If these papers had been stolen from a dwelling-house, could they be charged to be of the value of £500 each? There is no sum mentioned in them, and no drawer; and they being, as I before observed, but a kind of embryo security, I am of opinion that the first three counts of this indictment are not proved. There is, however, a fourth count, which describes the papers as ten pieces of paper, each having a six shilling stamp; and upon this count the question is, whether the prisoner can be said to have stolen this property? The fourth count correctly describes them, but it seems to me that the circumstances under which they were obtained by the prisoner were not such as to make the prisoner liable for a felony. If a person by a false representation obtains the possession of the property of another, intending to convert it to his own use, this is felony; but the property must have previously been in the possession of the person from whom it is charged to have been stolen. Now, I think that these papers, in the state in which they were, were the property of the prisoner. He took them from his pocket, and Mr. Astley never had them, except for the purpose of writing on them; they were never out of the prisoner's sight; Mr. Astley writes on them, as was intended, and the prisoner immediately has them again. I think that the prisoner cannot be considered as having committed a trespass in the taking, as they were never out of his possession at all. The case cited(o) was a case in trover, and, to maintain trover, it is not necessary that the party should *have *272] manual possession of the goods; if he has a right of possession, that is sufficient. To support an indictment for larceny, there must be such a possession as would enable the party to maintain trespass. It has been incidentally mentioned that these stamps might be charged in account to Mr. Astley, but that could only be if

(0) Evans v. Kymer, 1 B. & Ad. 528 (20 E. C. L. R.)

the transaction was completed. However, we must only take into consideration that which occurred on the last occasion, when the words 'accepted' and 'F. D. Astley' were written. Indeed, it appears to me, that on neither of the occasions when these parties met, can the prosecutor be said to have had either the property or the possession of these papers, so as to make the prisoner guilty of larceny in taking the papers out of the house." (p)

So an unstamped order for the payment of money, which ought to be stamped under the 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, was not a valuable security within the same section. The prisoner was convicted of obtaining an order for the payment of the sum of £2 by false pretences; the order was a check drawn upon Messrs. Child and Co., payable to D. Francis Jones for £2, and it was not payable to D. F. Jones, but to D. Francis Jones only; it was not payable to order or bearer. Upon a case reserved, the judges were of opinion that it was not a valuable security, as it ought to have been stamped, and therefore the banker would have subjected himself to a penalty of £5 by paying it.(q)

The prisoner was charged in different counts with stealing a check for £13 98. 7d., a piece of paper, value one penny, and an order for the payment of money. The Great Western Railway Company being indebted for poor rates to the overseers of

the

poor of Taunton St. James in the sum of £13 9s. 7d., a check for that amount was, by the proper authority, drawn at Paddington on their London bankers, and then transmitted through the hands of various officers of the Company to the Superintendent at the Taunton Station, who placed it in the hands of the prisoner (the chief clerk there), ordering him to pay it to the overseer, and to bring him a stamped receipt upon his return. On his return the superintendent asked the prisoner if he had paid the overseer; he answered, "Yes," and, being asked for the receipt, said that the overseer, not having one by him, had promised to send it to a certain inn in the town for him. In truth, the prisoner had not paid it, and the next morning but one got it cashed by a tradesman, and applied the proceeds to his own use. It was objected, that the check, being issued in Taunton, though made within fifteen miles of the bank, could not be read for want of a stamp, and was not a valuable security. Coleridge, J., thought that the check was either issued at Paddington or not until the cashing of it at Taunton; and that in the first case it was clearly within the exemption of the Stamp Act; and that in the second it was stolen before the issuing, and that an unstamped check, made within *distance, [*273 but not issued, was a valuable security within the statute. Coleridge, J., also thought that the check might be considered as stolen when the prisoner, instead of applying it, as he was ordered, in payment to the overseer, had appropriated it to himselt, of which the false statement to the superintendent was evidence, and that the cashing of it afterwards was only further evidence of the appropriation. The check was therefore read, and the prisoner convicted; and, upon a case reserved, the judges held the conviction right, as the stealing of the piece of paper was suf ficient to sustain a count for larceny.(r)

The first count charged the prisoner with stealing four warrants and orders for the payment of money, to wit, for £5 each, and of the value of £5 each; the second, four warrants and orders for the payment of £5, and of the value of £5 each, commonly called post-office money orders; and the third, four valuable securities, that is to say, four warrants and orders, commonly called post-office money orders. The documents were in the following form:

(p) Rex v. Hart, 6 C. & P. 106 (25 E. C. L. R ), Bolland, B., and Bosanquet, J., delivered opinions to the same effect. See Reg. v. Smith, ante, p. 225.

(9) Rex v. Yates, R. & M. C. C. R. 170. In Rex v. Mucklow, R. & M. C. C. R. 160, ante, p. 241, one objection was that the check, which was drawn more than ten miles from the residence of the person in whose favor it was drawn, was void for want of a stamp, but this objection was not disposed of by the judges.

(r) Reg. v. Perry, 1 Den. C. C. 69; 1 C. & K. 725 (47 E. C. L. R.). Ex parte Bignold, 1 Deac. R. 735, was cited as to issuing a check. As the conviction was held right on the count for stealing a piece of paper, no opinion was expressed on any other point, and therefore it must not be assumed that the ruling of Coleridge, J., at the trial was

erroneous.