« PreviousContinue »
need not aver
C.C. R. 23. 3 Bos. & Pull. 106. 2 East's P.C. 576. Rer v. Floyd,
Dorchester Sp. Ass. 1802, cor. Le Blanc J. MS. C.C. R. S. P. Indictment The indictment charged that the prisoner was employed as a
clerk to A., and that by virtue of his employment, he received that prisoner from B. on account of his master 91. 18s. 9d. without shewing of feloniously em
what monies that sum was made up, and that he fraudulently embezzled, if it
bezzled and secreted the same, omitting the word feloniously; he feloniously
and so it concluded that the jurors say, that he did feloniously stole, &c. embezzle, steal, take, and carry, &c. Objection was made, that in
the introductory part of the indictment it was not alleged that he did feloniously embezzle, &c.; and that therefore the indict. ment failed to shew that he had committed a felony, and that unless it was so shewn in the body of the indictment, it was not enough that it was so alleged in the conclusion of it. The judges, however, considered it to be sufficient that it was stated in the conclusion, and the indictment was holden good. R. v. Crighton, cor. Thomson B., Lancaster Sum. Ass. 1803, and before all the judges at Serjeants’ Inn, M. T. 1803, C. C. R. 92. and cited per
Bayley J., 3 M. & S. 555. Trial.
But, in order to found a judgment upon the statute, the indictCounty. ment must be specially drawn, so as to bring the case within it. Receiving in Jones's case, Winton Spring Ass. 1800, 2 East's P. C. 576. one county, Where the prisoner received money in the county of Salop, and denying such
denied such receipt in the county of Stafford, it was hulden by receipt in another county.
the judges to be evidence to shew that the original receipt was
in Surrey, and the same day being called upon to account for it in Middleset, denied that he had ever received it, there being no evidence of the prisoner having done any act to embezzle in the county of Surrey, the judges held that he was properly indicted in the county of Middleser. Taylor's case, o. B. 1803, C. C. R. 63. 3 Boss. & Pull. 596. 2 Leach, 974.
But by 7 G. 4. c. 64. $ 12., where a felony or misdemeanor shall Ø 12. offence
be committed on the boundaries of two or more counties, begun in one 500 yards of such boundary, or shall be begun in one county and county com
completed in another, every such offence may be tried in any pleted in an
the said counties as if it had been actually and wholly committed therein.
Where the owner delivers his property to another, intending to Owner delivering his property part with it altogether and absolutely, the taking and disposing of with intent of it will not amount to felony, although the party receiving it in: parting with it tended to defraud the owner, and induced him to part with it by absolutely
false representation. 2 East's P. C. c. 16. & 102. p. 668. 103.
p. 669. 2 Russ. 109. Obtaining deli- Justin Harvey was indicted for horse stealing: and it appeared very of a horse in evidence that the prisoner met the prosecutor at a fair
; with the solà, on promise horse, which he had brought there for the purpose of selling it ; and to return imme- being known to him, proposed to him to become the purchaser.
7 G. 4. c. 64.
They walked together in the fair ; and, upon a view of the horse, diately and pay the prosecutor told the prisoner he should have it for 81.; and for it; and calling his servant, ordered him to deliver it to the prisoner: who riding off and immediately mounted the horse, telling the prosecutor that he not returning; would return immediately and pay him; the prosecutor replied
no felony. very well ; and the prisoner rode away with the horse, and never returned. - Gould J. ordered an acquittal; for here was a complete contract of sale and delivery: the property as well as the possession was entirely parted with. R. v. Harvey, Chelmsford Ass. 1787, cor. Gould J., ‘1 Leach, 467. 2 East's P. C. 669.
So, also, where the prisoner, with a fraudulent intent to obtain Taking goods goods, ordered a tradesman to send him a piece of silk, to be paid by purchase for on delivery; and, upon the silk being sent accordingly, gave though giving the servant who brought it bills which were mere fabrications, false bills in and of no value: it was holden not to be larceny, on the ground
payment. that the servant parted with the property by accepting such payment as was offered, though his master did not intend to give the prisoner credit. Park's case, 0. B. Jan. 1794, 2 Leach, 614. 2 East's P. C. 671.
The prisoner bespoke a box of goods, telling the tradesman he Goods sold for meant to pay him ready money; the box was left at a coach- ready money, office ready for departure the day following, and an appointment and frauduwas made for the payment of the bill at a coffee-house; the letly taken
without being prisoner never went to the coffee-house, but had, in the meantime, paid for. carried off the box from the office : Held to be larceny; the jury finding, that it was the prisoner's intention, ab initio, to get the goods without payment, and convert them to his own use. H. T. 1828, R. v. Campbell, 1 R. & M. 179.
The prisoner agreed for the purchase of some oxen at a fair, Purchase of and was to pay for them at an adjoining inn; he never appeared oxen at a fair
, there, but in the meantime took away the beasts and sold them clandestinely
taken away again in the fair ; and the custom was, to pay before they were delivered: Held to be larceny, the jury finding, that he never intended to pay for the beasts. E. T. 1828, R. v. Gilbert, 1R. & M. 185.
Where the prisoner agreed for the purchase of goods to be Prisoner allowpaid for on delivery, and he was afterwards allowed to take them ed to take goods
from the wharf from the wharf, on his promise to pay for them before they were
on a promise to lodged in his house ; on the way there, however, he took them in
pay for them another direction, and disposed of them. The jury found, that he before he placed never meant to pay, but to defraud the owner. Held larceny. them in his H. T. 1830, R. v. Pratt, 1 R. & M. 250.
house. The prisoner procured some chests of tea to be delivered to Prisoner ob. him at a carrier's office, by falsely pretending that he was the taining boxes person to whom they were addressed. The jury found that he sent by a car
rier by personknew they were not his property, and intended to steal them; and
ating the perheld to be larceny, as the carrier's servant had no authority to son to whom part with the ownership to the prisoner. E. T. 1826, R. v. Long- they were adstreeth, 1 R. & M. 137.
dressed. The prosecutor having been inveigled by sharpers to bet with Property parted them, and suffered by them to win in the first instance, was after- with as for a wards stripped of a large sum, by losing a bet; and the whole bet fairly lost. transaction was found by the jury to have been a preconcerted scheme to get the prosecutor's money; but it was holden by the judges, on case reserved, not to be a felonious taking, as the pro
secutor parted with the property in his money, under an idea that it had been fairly won. Case of Nicholson, Jones, and Chappel,
0. B. 1794, 2 Leach, 610. 2 East's P. C. 669. No difference It makes no difference in these cases, that the credit was ob. where delivery tained by fraudulently using another's name, to whom, in truth, the from the owner
credit was intended to be given, if the delivery of the goods were upon credit obtained under made by the owner, or any other having the disposing power for another's name.
that purpose. 2 East's P. C. 672. Obtaining
Thus, where the prisoner went to a tradesman's house, and said silver on pre- she came from a Mrs. Cook, a neighbour, who would be much tence of sending obliged if he would let her have half a guinea's worth of silver, a half guinea
and that she would send the half guinea presently. The prisoner presently in exchange; no
obtained the silver, and never returned; and this was holden no felony. felony. This was, in truth, a loan of the silver, upon the faith that
the amount would be repaid at another time. It was money obtained on a false pretence; and the same determination has been made in similar cases at the O. B. Coleman's case, 0. B. June,
1785, 2 East's P. C. 672. Obtaining by The prisoner discovered that Paul had ordered a hat of Beer, fraud from a
and he sent a boy to Beer's for it in Pauls name, and obtained it. hatter a hat intended for
He was indicted for stealing it. And one count stated it to be another person.
Beer's property, another Paul's. It was urged that he should have been indicted for obtaining it by false pretences : and on a case reserved, the judges held the conviction could not be supported. Not on the first count, because Beer had parted with the ownership; and not on the second, because Paul had never had possession. R. v. Adams, Taunton Sp. Ass. 1812, cor.
Chambre J. C. C. R. 225. One writing a James William Atkinson was indicted (M. T. 1799), for stealing letter in the two bank.notes, the property of William Dunn, against the statute. name of another It appeared that the prisoner sent one Dale (to whom he was un. to a third person known) with a letter directed to Dunn ; bidding Dale to tell money, which
Dunn that he brought the letter from Mr. Broad; and to bring the he obtains by answer to him (the prisoner) in the next street, where he would that fraud, is wait for him. Dale accordingly carried to Dunn the letter, which only guilty of was written in the name of Broad, a friend of Dunn's, soliciting misdemeanor.
the loan of 31. for a few days; and desiring that the money might be inclosed back in a letter immediately. Dunn thereupon sent the bank-notes in question, inclosed in a letter directed to Broad, and delivered the same to Dale, who delivered them to the prisoner, as he was first ordered. The letter turned out to be an imposition. It was objected at the trial that this was no felony, because the absolute dominion of the property was parted with by the owner, though induced thereto by means of a false and fraudulent pretence.
And on reference to the judges after conviction, all present held that it was no felony ; on the ground that the property was intended to pass by the delivery of the owner ; and that this case came within the stat. 33 H. 8. c. 1. against false tokens, which particularly speaks of counterfeit letters
. Atkinson's case, 0. B. Sept. 1799, cor. Le Blanc J. Ms. C.C.R.
2 East's P. C. 673. Prisoner fraudu
The prisoner having pledged certain articles with a pawnbroker, lently getting got them back from his managing servant, by pretending to leave back goods
in their place some valuable jewels, though, in fact, they were which he had rawned. common stones : a case being reserved, the judges held that as the servant, who had a general authority from his master, parted with the property and ownership, and not merely with the possession, it did not amount to felony. Hil. Term, 1826. R. v. Jackson, 1 R. & M. 119.
R. v. Walsh, Esq. M. P., H. T. 1812, C. C. R. 215. 4. Taunt. R. v. Walsh. 258. 2 Leach, 1054. Walsh, a stock-broker, advised Sir Thomas Brokers, bankPlumer to sell stock, which he did, and the money was paid unto
ers, or agents,
embezzling Sir T. P.'s bankers ; Sir T. P. then gave W. à check on his
securities depo. banker for 22,5001., that he might buy exchequer bills therewith. sited with them W. bought exchequer bills to the amount of 60001., and embezzled for security or the rest of the money. It did not appear that W. had any inten- any special tion to embezzle when he advised Sir T. P. to sell the stock, but purpose, are afterwards, foreseeing that he would give a check to buy exchequer demeanor. bills, he formed his plan for embezzling part. When he got the check, he got the money from the bankers. Walsh was indicted for stealing, first, the check, and, secondly, part of the money received upon it at the banker's. And such money was described, first, as Sir T. P.'s, and, secondly, as the banker's. The jury found that he had the design to embezzle when he took the check from Sir T. P. The case was twice argued, and the judges were unanimous that it was no felony: first, because there was no fraud or contrivance to induce Sir T. P. to give the check ; secondly, because it could not be called his goods and chattels, and was of no value in his hands; thirdly, because he had never had possession of the money received at the banker's, so that it could not be called his money; and, fourthly, because the bankers were discharged of the money on paying it on the check, so that they were not defrauded, and it could not be said the money was stolen from them. No judgment was ever publicly pronounced in this case, but the prisoner was liberated.
By 7 & 8 G. 4. C. 29. 49. it is made a misdemeanor, if any 7 & 8 G. 4. money, or security for payment of money, shall be entrusted to c. 29., embezany banker, merchant, broker, attorney, or other agent, with zlement by
bankers, directions in writing for the application thereof, and he shall, in
brokers, &c. violation of good faith, and contrary to the purpose so specified, convert to his own use or benefit such money, &c. or any part thereof. See this tit. post.
A letter containing a banker's check was sent by the post to Letter containT. M., but the address to his place of residence being wrong, it ing a check de
livered to a was delivered by the postman to another T. M., who appropriated
wrong person. it to his own use, though it clearly appeared that he knew it was not intended for him. The judges held the conviction to be wrong, as it did not appear that the prisoner had any animus furandi when he first received the letter. E. T. 1827, R. v. Macklow, 1 R. & M. 160. If the owner has not parted with the property in the goods, but Delivery, where
the owner does only with the possession of them, the question of larceny still re
not part with the mains open; and will depend upon the fact, whether, at the time of the alleged felonious taking, the owner had parted with the pos- only with the
properly, but session of the goods in such a manner, and to such an extent, as to possession of the exclude the idea of trespass. For if the owner of the goods parted goods. with the possession of them without fraud practised by the taker, and if, after the owner had so parted with the possession of them, nothing was done to determine the privity of contract under which
was sent away
the taker had the possession of them delivered to him, no trespass, and therefore no larceny, can be committed by their conversion.
2 Russ. 118. Goods examin- Sharpless and Greatrix were convicted of stealing six pair of ed by one pre- silk stockings of Owen Hudson ; on which a case was reserved for tending to be. the consideration of the judges ; which stated that Greatrix, in the come a pur- character of servant to Sharpless, had left a note at Hudson's shop, chaser, and set
who was a hosier, desiring that he would send an assortment of apart from the rest, but not silk stockings to his master's lodgings, at the Red Lamp, in Queen actually bar- Square. The hosier having taken them according to direction, gained for or Greatrix opened the door to him, and introduced him into a delivered, were
parlour, where Sharpless was sitting in a dressing-gown, his hair afterwards car
just dressed, and an unusual quantity of powder over his face. ried off by him while the owner Having looked at some of the stockings, and asked the price, which
he was told was 14s. a pair, he desired Mr. Hudson to fetch some on pretence of silk pieces for breeches, and some black silk stockings with French getting more : clocks. Hudson hung the six pair of stockings, which Sharpless held felony;
had looked out, on the back of the chair, and went home for the the property not being trans
other goods; but no positive agreement had taken place respecting ferred.
the stockings. During Hudson's absence, the prisoners decamped with the goods, which were proved to have been afterwards pawned by one of them. The judges were of opinion that the conviction was right; for the whole of the prisoners' conduct manifested a preconceived design to obtain a tortious possession of the property: and the verdict of the jury imported, that in their belief the evil intention preceded the possession of the goods by them. But that, even independent of that, there did not appear a sufficient delivery to change the property. R. v. Sharpless & Greatrix, 0. B. May,
1772, cor. Gould J. 2 East's P, C. 675. 1 Leach, 92. Goods sent by
Prisoner was indicted for stealing two cream jugs, the property a tradesman for of A., a silversmith : it appeared that prisoner had been the servant selection.
of a customer of A.'s, but was so no longer ; he came, however, to A., as if he had been still in the service, saying that his master wanted a cream jug, and desired it might be put down to his account; A. sent two jugs, that the master might take which he liked best, and the prisoner made away with both; and per Bayley J., as A. had parted with the possession only, and not with the right of property, it was larceny; but if he had sent one jug only in execution of the pretended order, it would have been otherwise. Cor. Bayley J. Sp. Ass. Newcastle, 1826, R. v. Da
venport, Archbold's Peet's Acts, &c. p. 4. Procuring Where the owner of goods sent them by his servant to be carried goods by fraud to the house of A., and the prisoner, meeting him in the street, from owner's
fraudulently procured the delivery of them to himself, by pretend. ing to be A., it was holden to be larceny. Wilkins's case, O. B. 1789, 1 Leach, 520. 2 East's P. C. 673.
Obtaining possession from a person who has the charge of goods, by pretending to be the servant of a person who has bought them,
is felony. Goods fraudus- Robert Hench was indicted for stealing a chest and 59 pounds' lently taken at weight of tea, which in one count of the indictment were stated the East India
as the property of James Layton and William James Thompson ; House by pre- and in another count, as the property of the East India Company. tending to be the person who
The facts were, that Messrs. Layton & Co., who were tea brokers,