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. Č. 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 6s. 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 137. 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 indorse. ment 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.

Gas.]--The prisoner had contracted with a gas company for a supply of gas. The quantity consumed was to be measured by a meter rented by the prisoner of the company, and was to be paid for according to such measurement. The gas was conveyed from the company's main through an entrance pipe (the property of the prisoner) to the meter, and from thence, by another pipe, called the exit pipe, to the burners. The pris

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. 563— Abinger.

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.

Where a letter enclosing a cheque was directed to James Mucklow,

ed by and delivered to the buyer, it is not felony though he immediately rides away with it without paying the purchase-money. Rex v. Harvey, 1 Leach, C. C. 467; 2 East, P. C. 669.

But obtaining a horse under the pretext of hiring it for a day, and immediately selling it, is felony, if the jury finds the hiring was animo furandi. Rex v. Pear, 1 Leach, C. C. 212; 2 East, P. C. 685, 697. And see Rex v. Tunnard, 2 East, P. C. 687; 1 Leach, C. C. 214, n.

If a thief goes to an inn, and, intending to steal a horse, directs the ostler to bring out his horse, pointing to that of the prosecutor, and the ostler, at his desire, leads out the horse for the prisoner to mount: this is a sufficient taking by the prisoner to support an indictment for horse-stealing. Rex v. Pitman, 2 C. & P. 423-Garrow.

Where the prisoners having entered a stable at night, and taking out horses, rode them thirty-two miles, and then left them at an inn, and were afterwards found pursuing their journey on foot; and the jury found that they took the horses merely with intent to ride and afterwards to leave them and not to return or make any further use of them :--Held, that this was a trespass and not a larceny. Rex v. Phillips, 2 East, P. C. 662.

changed the saddles, and, without giving any money, rode away with the mare, leaving the servant with a horse of little value. Four days after the prisoner sold the mare at B., stating that he had got her in a chop at M. fair :--Held, that, as the servant had the mere charge of the mare, and had no right to deal with the property in her, the prisoner ought to be convicted of stealing her, providing that the jury was satisfied that the prisoner was in league with the two other men, and that the three, by a fraud in which each of them was to take his part and did take his part, induced the servant to part with possession of the mare under colour of exchange, but they intended all the while to steal the mare. Reg. v. Sheppard, 9 C. & P. 121--Coleridge.

If a person stealing other property takes a horse, not with the intent to steal it, but only to get off more conveniently with the other property which he has stolen, such taking of the horse is not a felony. Rex v. Crump, 1 C. & P. 658-Garrow.

Indictment.]-In an indictment for horse-stealing, the animal, whether a horse, mare, gelding, colt or filly, may be described as a horse. Reg. v. Aldridge, 4 Cox, C. C. 143-Erle.

Foals and fillies were within 2 & 3 Edw. 6, c. 33, and were included in the words horse, gelding or mare, and evidence of stealing a mare filly supported an indictment for stealing a mare. Rex v. Welland, R. & R. C. C. 494.

By 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 25, if any person shall steal any horse, mare, &c., or shall wilfully kill any of such cattle with intent to steal the carcase, every such offender shall be guilty of felony, and on conviction suffer death. The 2 & 3 Will.