Page images
PDF
EPUB

.

imprisoned and kept to hard labour, for any term not exceeding two calendar months where the amount of the sum forfeited, or of the penalty imposed, or of both (as the case may be) together with the costs, shall not exceed five pounds, and for any term not exceeding four calendar months, where the amount, with costs, shall not exceed ten pounds, and for any term not exceeding six calendar months in any other case,the commitment to be determinable in each of the cases aforesaid upon payment of the amount and costs."

Id. 8. 8.

Compounding offences.] "If any person shall publicly advertize or offer a reward for the return or recovery of any dog which shall have been stolen or lost, and shall in such advertisement use any words purporting that no questions will be asked, or shall make use of any words in any public advertisement purporting that a reward will be given or paid for any dog which shall have been stolen or lost without seizing of making any inquiry after the person producing such dog: every such person shall forfeit the sum of twenty-five pounds for every such offence, to any person who will sue for the same, by action of debt, to be recovered with full costs of suit." 11. s. 4.

Receiving money, to restore stolen dogs.] And "any person who shall corruptly take any money or reward directly or indirectly, under pretence or upon account of aiding any person to recover any dog which shall have been stolen, or which shall be in the possession of any person not being the owner thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punishable accordingly." Id. 8. 6. This must be understood to mean an indictable misdemeanor.

Allowing surage dogs to go unmuzzled.] If a man have a dog, which he knows to be of a savage nature, and addicted to bite mankind, and he allow it to go in any frequented place, without being muzzled or otherwise guarded so as to prevent injury from it, it seems that he is indictable as for a common nuisance. See 1 Russ. 303.

DRUNKENNESS.

Hono punishable.] If any person shall be drunk, and thereof be convicted before one justice on view, confession, or the oath of one witness, he shall forfeit for the first offence five shillings, to be paid within one week after conviction to the church

[merged small][ocr errors]

wardens, for the use of the poor; and if he refuse or neglect to pay the same, it may be levied by distress; or if the offender be not able to pay, he shall be committed to the stocks, there to remain for the space of six hours. And if he be convicted a second time, he shall be bound in a recognizance with two sureties in the sum of 10l., conditioned to be thenceforth of good behaviour. 21 Jac. 1, c. 7, ss. 1, 3.

Conviction in the ordinary form;-For that A. B., of · on at, was drunk: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. Whereupon the said A. B., &c.

No excuse for crime.] Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse whatever for crime, but the party shall be punished in precisely the same manner as if he were sober at the time he committed the act. Co. Lit. 247. 1 Hawk. c. 1, s. 6. And see R. v. Carroll, 7 Car. & P. 145. R. v. Meakin, Id. 297.

DRUGS.

See "Abortion.”

ELECTOR.

See "Parliament."

EMBEZZLEMENT.

By clerks or servants.] "If any clerk or servant, or any person employed for the purpose or in the capacity of a clerk or servant, shall, by virtue of such employment, receive or take into his possession any chattel, money, or valuable security, for or in the name or on the account of his master, and shall fraudulently embezzle the same or any part thereof: every such offender shall be deemed to have feloniously stolen the same from his master, although such chattel, money, or security was not received into the possession of such master, otherwise than by the actual possession of his clerk, servant, or other person so employed;" punishment, transportation for not more than fourteen years nor less than seven, or imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than three years. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 47.

A female servant is within the Act; R. v. Eliz. Smith, R. & Ry. 267; so is an apprentice. R. v. Mellish, R. & Ry. 80. And

it is immaterial whether the clerk or servant be paid by wages, or by a per centage on the profits arising from his labour; R. v. Hartley, R. & Ry. 139. R. v. Carr, Id. 198; or whether his employment be permanent or occasional only. R. v. Wm. Spencer, R. & Ry. 299. R. v. Hughes, Ry. & M. 370. And a clerk of a joint stock bank, may be convicted of embezzling the money of the company, although he be a shareholder or partner in the company. R. v. Atkinson, Car. & M. 525. It must appear that he was authorized to receive either the particular money, &c., which he has embezzled, or money generally, for his master; R. v. Thomas Smith, R. & Ry. 516. R. v. Beechey, Id. 319. R. v. Williams, 6 Car. & P. 626; and if money be paid to a servant, who was never entrusted by his master to receive any money, and he embezzle it, it will not be a case within the statute. R. v. Thorley, Ry. & M. 343. R. v. Mellish, R. & Ry. 80. R. v. Hawtin, 7 Car. & P. 281; and see R. v. Wilson, 9 Car. & P. 27. The embezzlement is usually to be implied from circumstances: as that, having received the money, he ran away without accounting for it; R. v. Sarah Williams, 7 Car. & P. 338; or although he may have continued in the service, that he denied the receipt of the money, &c.; R. v. Hobson, R. & Ry. 56. R. v. W. Taylor, Id. 63; or did not account with his master for that particular money, when he accounted for others received at the same time or afterwards. R. v. John Hall, R. & Ry. 463; and see R. v. Jacksom, Car. & K. 384. But merely not accounting for money received, which the clerk or servant had authority to receive, or not entering it in the books, will not of itself be sufficient to convict him of embezzlement, if he did not deny the receipt of it, R. v. Jones, 7 Car. & P. 833, and the case be unattended by any other circumstance proving an intent to defraud the master of it. Or if, instead of denying the appropriation, he, in rendering his accounts, admit it, alleging a right, however unfounded, or an excuse, however frivolous, he is not deemed guilty of embezzlement; R. v. Norman, Car. & M. 501; and the same, although he afterwards abscond. R. v. Creed, Car. & K. 63. And in one case it was holden by Vaughan B., that, where the prisoner had entered the sum, as received, in his master's book, but did not pay it over, this was not embezzlement. R. v. Hodgson, 3 Car. & P. 422. But in a recent case, where the coachman of a stage-coach had to account for monies received by him from passengers, to the bookkeeper at one of the stages, and had to pay over the monies to his master; and on one particular occasion, he returned the true sums to the bookkeeper, and they were entered in the books accordingly, but he paid to his master a less sum, as being all that he had received: Patteson, J., held this to be embezzlement. R. v. White, 8 Cur. & P. 742. So, where a banker's cashier was indicted for em

bezzlement, it appeared that it was his duty to put all sums received by him into a box or till, of which he kept the key, and to enter them in the money book; at the end of each day, he balanced the book, and the balance formed the first item in his account on the following day; the master having a suspicion of him, examined his money book, according to which there ought then to be £1,300 in the till and box, but on examining these, there was in fact but a sum of £345 in them, he having applied the rest to his own use, but when, or in what sums, or from whom the particular monies embezzled was received, did not appear: the judges at the central criminal court held this to be within the statute, and the prisoner was convicted. R. v. Grove, 7 Car. & P. 635; but see R. v. Chapman, Car. & K. 119. So, where a servant, authorized to receive money, and whose duty it was to account every evening for what he so received, received three sums for his employer on different days, and neither accounted for them nor paid them over: Coleridge, J., held this to be embezzlement, although the servant never denied the receipt of these sums, nor rendered any account in which they were omitted. R. v. Jackson, Car. & K. 384. And the embezzlement may be deemed to have been committed, either in the county, &c., where the prisoner received the money, &c., or in that in which he ought to have accounted to his master and did not. R. v. Hobson, R. & Ry. 56. R. v. W. Taylor, Id. 63. If, instead of receiving it from a third person, he take the money out of his master's stock, the offence is larceny, not embezzlement. R. v. Murray, Ry. & M. 276. See R. v. Wilson, 9 Car. & P. 27.

Commitment:-On at -, being then clerk [or servant] to C. D., did receive and take into his possession certain money, to the amount of ten pounds and upwards, for and in the name and on the account of the said C. D. his master, and the said money feloniously did embezzle; against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. And you the said keeper, &c. If the property embezzled consist of money, bank notes, bills of exchange, &c., or other valuable security, it may be described as "certain money" as in the above form; but where goods or chattels have been embezzled, they must be described shortly, as in larceny. See 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 48.

As to embezzlement by agents, bankers, &c. see ante, p. 14, tit. "Agent."

By officers in Her Majesty's service.] "If any person employed in the public service of his Majesty, and entrusted by virtue of such employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of any chattel, money or valuable security, shall embezzle the same or any part thereof, or in any manner fraudulently

apply or dispose of the same or any part thereof, to his own use or benefit, or for any purpose whatsoever except for the public service: every such offender shall be deemed to have stolen the same:" and on conviction, shall be transported for not more than fourteen years nor less than seven, or imprisoned with or without hard labour for not more than three years. 2 W. 4, c. 4, s. 1. See R. v. Townsend, Car. & M. 178.

The commitment may readily be framed from the last form. The property may be laid, both in the commitment and indictment, "in the King's Majesty." Id. s. 4. The offender may be indicted, tried, &c., either in the county or place in which he committed the offence, or in that in which he was apprehended. Id. 8. 5.

As to stealing or embezzling the Queen's stores, &c. see post, title "Queen's stores, embezzling, &c."

EMBRACERY.

Embracery is an attempt to corrupt or influence jurors to give their verdict in favour of a particular party. All attempts whatsoever to corrupt, influence or instruct a jury, or in any way to incline them to be more favourable to one side than to the other, by money, promises, letters, threats, or persuasions, or in any other way than by the strength of the evidence and the arguments of counsel, at the trial in open court, is an act of embracery; 1 Hawk. c. 85, s. 1; and is punishable by indictment at common law, as a misdemeanor, with fine or imprisonment, or both. Id. s. 7, and c. 83, s. 38; and with fine or imprisonment by some ancient statutes, 5 Ed. 3, c. 10; 34 Ed. 3, c. 8, and 38 Ed. 3, c. 12.

And by stat. 6 G. 4, c. 50 (the jury act), s. 61, it is provided, enacted and declared, that notwithstanding anything therein contained, every person who shall be guilty of the offence of embracery, and every juror who shall wilfully or corruptly consent thereto, shall and may be respectively proceeded against by indictment or information, and be punished by fine or imprisonment, in like manner as every such person and juror might have been before the passing of that Act.

ENGROSSING.

See "Forestalling."

« PreviousContinue »