"acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately 66 or otherwise."

Mortgage deeds, being substituted securities for the payment of money, are choses of action, and not goods and chattels. Where, therefore, a prisoner was indicted for a burglary, in breaking into a house at night, with intent to steal the goods and chattels therein, and the jury found that he broke into the house with intent to steal mortgage deeds only, the conviction was quashed. Reg. v. Powell, 2 Den. C. C. 403; 5 Cox, C. C. 396; 16 Jur. 177; 21 L. J., M. C. 78.

Valuable Securities.]-"The term "valuable security shall include "any order, exchequer acquittance, or other security whatsoever, en"titling or evidencing the title of any person or body corporate to any share or interest in any pub"lic 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 pay"ment 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 here"inbefore defined." (Former provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 5.)

66

W.": and in another count the larceny of" three deeds, being a security for the payment of money, to wit, for 201., of and belonging to H. W.", is supported by proof of the larceny of deeds of lease and release from A. to B. of real estate, and of a mortgage by demise of the same property from B. to C., and held by the prosecutor as executor of Č. Ib.

A prisoner was convicted on an indictment under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 27, for stealing a valuable security, to wit, an agreement between L. and C., whereby C. was entitled to receive payment of certain sums of money, and which sums were then due and unsatisfied to C. The sums were not due till some time after the stealing:-Held, that since this section limits the terms valuable security to securities other than a document of title to lands, it is material in an indictment under this section to describe the valuable security, so as to shew that it is within the section that the description given ought to have been proved, and that, since it had not been proved, the conviction could not be supported. Reg. v. Lowrie, 36 L. J., M. C. 24; 1 L. R., C. C. 61.

An agreement, although unstamped, is a chose in action, and therefore not the subject of larceny. Reg. v. Watts, Dears. C. C. 326; 2 C. L. R. 604; 18 Jur. 192; 23 L. J., M. C. 56; 6 Cox, C. C. 304.

66

An indictment charging in one count the larceny of "three deeds being a security for money, to wit, for 201., of and belonging to H.

Value.]-Though, to make a thing the subject of an indictment for a larceny, it must be of some value, and stated to be so in the indictment, yet it need not be of the value of some coin known to the law,

that is to say, of a farthing at the least. Reg. v. Morris, 9 C. & P. 349-Parke.

Bills, Notes, Cheques and other Securities.]— Stealing re-issuable notes after they have been paid, and before they have been re-issued, did not subject the party to an indictment on 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, for stealing notes; but he might be indicted for stealing paper with valuable stamps upon it. Rex v. Clark, R. & R. C. C. 181; 2 Leach, C. C. 1036.

To obtain from a person his note of hand by threatening with a knife held to his throat to take away his life, was not a felonious stealing of the note within 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, s. 3, for it never was of value to, or in the peaceable possession of, such person. Rex v. Phipoe, 2 Leach, C. C. 673; 2 East, P. C. 599.

Country bankers' notes, which had been paid by the bankers in London, at whose house they were made payable, and by them sent down to the country bankers to be re-issued, cn the way there were stolen, and the prisoner was indicted for receiving them. The indictment in some counts charged the notes to be valuable securities, and in others, as pieces of paper of the goods and chattels of the country bankers. The prisoner was convicted, and the conviction held right. Some of the judges doubted whether these notes were to be considered as valuable securities, but, if not, they all thought they were goods and chattels. Rex v. Vyse, 1 M. C. C. 218.

Exchequer bills, although signed by a person not authorized to do so, were securities and effects within 15 Geo. 2, c. 13, s. 12. Rex v. Aslett, 1 N. R. 1; 2 Leach, C. C. 958; R. & R. C. C. 67.

The halves of country bank-notes, sent in a letter, are goods and chattels, and a person who steals them is indictable for larceny. Rex v. Mead, 4 C. & P. 535-Bosanquet.

A., in consequence of seeing an advertisement applied to B. to raise money for him, B. said he would procure him 5,000l., and produced from his pocket-book ten blank 68. bill stamps, across each of which A. wrote, "Accepted, payable at Messrs. P. & Co., 189, F. Street, London," and signed his name. B., who was present, took up the stamps, and nothing was said as to what was to be done with them. Afterwards bills of exchange for 5007. each were drawn on these stamps, and B. put them into circulation :-Held, that these stamps, with the acceptances thus written upon them, were neither bills of exchange, orders for the payment of money, nor securities for money. Rex v. Hart, 6 C. & P. 106--Littledale, Bolland and Bosanquet.

Held, also, that a charge of larceny against B. for stealing the stamps, and for stealing the paper on which the stamps were, would not be sustained, as this was no larceny. Ib.

A. charged in one count with stealing a cheque for 13l. 9s. 7d., and in another count with stealing a piece of paper value 1d-Held, that, supposing the cheque to have been a void cheque (as being contrary to 55 Geo. 3, c. 184), it would still sustain the charge laid in the second count. Reg. v. Perry, 1 Den. C. C. 69; 1 C. & K. 725.

A person might be convicted, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 5, if he stole scrip certificates of a foreign railway company, as the statute extended to valuable securities for the shares in the funds of a foreign as well as of a British company. Reg. v. Smith, Dears. C. C. 561; 7 Cox, C. C. 93; 1 Jur., N. S. 1212; 25 L. J., M. C. 31.

A. was indicted for stealing 951. in money. The evidence was, that he stole certain notes of a country bank which were not then in circulation, for value, but which had been paid in at one branch of the

same bank, and were in course of transmission to another branch, where they had been originally issued, in order that they might be there re-issued or otherwise disposed of:-Held, that A. was guilty of larceny; and that, since 14 & 15 Vict. c. 106, s. 18, the offence was correctly described in the indictment. Reg. v. West, 7 Cox, C. C. 183; Dears. & B. C. C. 109.

A servant a day or two before her mistress's death got cashed a cheque drawn to her mistress's order, and which had come to her mistress's house in a letter, and when cashed purported to bear her mistress's indorsement; and after cashing it she applied the greater part of it to a purpose which probably was directed by her mistress, but had retained a small surplus, and when taxed with it, just after her mistress's death, she denied the receipt of the cheque, the indorsement on which was believed not to be that of her mistress. The jury was directed that there was no evidence on which they could properly convict her for stealing the cheque, even if there was any on which they could have convicted for embezzling the surplus. Reg. v. Slingsby, 4 F. & F. 61--Pollock.

Stealing a pawnbroker's duplicate is larceny. Reg. v. Morrison, Bell, C. C. 158; 28 L. J., M. C. 210; 7 W. R. 554; 33 L. T. 220; 8 Cox, C. C. 194.

into the entrance and exit pipes, diverted the gas from the meter, and thereby avoided paying for the full quantity of gas consumed :— Held, that this was larceny of the gas; that there was a sufficient severance of the gas, at the point of junction of the connecting pipe with the entrance pipe, to constitute an asportation; that the property and possession of the gas were in the company; and that it was immaterial whether the service pipe was the property of the prisoner or the company. Reg. v. White, 3 C & K. 363; Dears. C. C. 203; 6 Cox, C. C. 213; 17 Jur. 536; 22 L. J., M. C. 123.

15. Letters and Government Docu

ments.

If A. asks B., who is not his servant, to put a letter in the post, telling him it contains money, and B. breaks the seal, and abstracts the money before he puts the letter in the post, he is guilty of larceny. Rex v. Jones, 7 C. & P. 151.

But if a person, from idle curiosity, either personal or political, opens a letter addressed to another person, and keeps the letter, this is no larceny, even though a part of his object may be to prevent the letter from reaching its destination. Reg. v. Godfrey, 8 C. & P. 563Abinger.

A servant of B. applied for at the post-office and received all the letters addressed to B. She delivered them all to B., except one, which she burned. Her motive for destroying it was the hope of suppressing inquiries respecting her character:-Held, a larceny, and that, supposing lucri causâ to be a necessary ingredient therein (which the court did not admit), there was a sufficient lucrum proved. Reg. v. Jones, 1 Den. C. C. 188; 2 C & K. 236.