taking, or ma

§ 21. If any person shall steal, or shall for any fraudulent pur- 7&8 G. 4. c.29. pose take from its place of deposit for the time being, or from any Stealing or person having the lawful custody thereof, or shall unlawfully and fraudulently maliciously obliterate, injure, or destroy any record, writ, return, liciously inpanel, process, interrogatory, deposition, affidavit, rule, order, or juring, &c. any warrant of attorney, or any original document whatsoever of or record, &c. belonging to any court of record, or relating to any matter, civil or criminal, begun, depending, or terminated in any such court, or any bill, answer, interrogatory, deposition, affidavit, order, or decree, or any original document whatsoever of or belonging to any court of equity, or relating to any cause or matter begun, depending, or terminated in any such court, every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported Punishment. beyond the seas for the term of seven years, or to suffer such other punishment by fine or imprisonment, or by both, as the court shall award; and it shall not in any indictment for such offence be necessary to allege that the article, in respect of which the offence is committed, is the property of any person, or that the same is of any value.

Written instruments which concerned mere choses in action, as bonds, bills, and notes, were considered at common law not to be goods whereof larceny could be committed, as being of no intrinsic value, and not importing any property in the possession of the person of whom they were stolen. 2 East, P. C. c. 16. § 36. p. 597.

2 Russ. 141.

The legislature, however, found it necessary to interfere in regard to many instruments which concerned mere choses in action, and to make the stealing of them larceny and felony. See 2 G. 2. c. 25. § 3. 2 Russ. 143.

Not necessary to allege property

or value.

Bonds, bills,

&c.

Statutes relat

ing thereto.

This stat. is now repealed by 7 & 8 G. 4. c. 27., except so far 2 G. 2. c. 25. as such repeal may be qualified by § 2., which enacts, "That repealed, nothing in this act contained shall in anywise affect or alter such except, &c. part of any act as relates to the post office, or to any branch of the public revenue, or to the naval, military, victualling, or other public stores of his Majesty, &c. except the acts of 31 Eliz. c. 4. 22. Car. 2. c. 5., which are herein-before repealed, or shall affect or alter any act relating to the Bank of England or South Sea Company."

7&8G. 4. c. 29. Stealing public or private securities for money, or warrants for goods.

7 & 8 G. 4. c. 29. § 5. If any person shall steal any tally, order, or other security whatsoever, entitling or evidencing the title of any person or body corporate to any share or interest in any public stock or fund, whether of this kingdom, or of Great Britain, or of Ireland, or of any foreign state, or in any fund of any body corporate, company, or society, or to any deposit in any savings' bank, or shall steal any debenture, deed, bond, bill, note, warrant, Bond, bill, note, order, or other security whatsoever for money or for payment of &c. money, whether of this kingdom, or of any foreign state, or shall steal any warrant or order for the delivery or transfer of any goods or valuable thing, every such offender shall be deemed guilty of felony, of the same nature, and in the same degree, and punishable in the same manner, as if he had stolen any chattel of like value with the share, interest, or deposit to which the security so stolen may relate, or with the money due on the security so stolen or secured thereby and remaining unsatisfied, or with the

A bill payable to order, but not indorsed.

Indorsement

made after the taking.

Exchequer bill signed by un

authorised per

son.

Country bank

notes paid, but

about to be reissued, subjects of larceny at common law..

Chattel valuable to the owner only.

Paid notes that

are re-issuable

may be called

tels.

value of the goods or other valuable thing mentioned in the warrant or order; and each of the several documents herein-before enumerated, shall throughout this act be deemed for every purpose to be included under and denoted by the words "valuable security."

At a conference of the judges in Easter term 1781, Nares J. mentioned, that a person was convicted before him for privately stealing from the person of another a pocket-book containing a note of the Bristol bank, signed by some one on behalf of himself and partners, promising to pay to the prosecutor or order a sum of money, but which the prosecutor had not indorsed. All the judges were of opinion that this was a capital felony within the stat. 2 G. 2. c. 25. (now repealed), which makes the stealing promissory notes, &c. felony, with the same consequences as goods of the like purported value; that this was a promissory note, and its not being indorsed was immaterial. 2 East's P. C. 598.

So, an indictment for stealing a bill of exchange upon the same statute was sustained by proof that when found in the prisoner's possession there, it had an indorsement (made afterwards) and not Jaid in the indictment; for the addition of a third name made no difference; it being the same bill that was originally stolen. Austin and King's case, Leicester Lent Ass, 1783, 2 East's P. C. 602.

In an indictment on 15 G. 2. c. 13., relating to embezzlements by servants of the Bank of England, the prisoner was charged with stealing certain bills called exchequer bills: and as it appeared that the person who signed them on the part of government was not legally authorised to do so, the court held they were not good exchequer bills, and that the prisoner could not be convicted. R. v. Aslett, 2 Leach, 954. 2 Russ. 145.

Where the notes of a country bank had been paid by their correspondent bank in London, but were reissuable, and being stolen while they were in transitu for the purpose of being reissued, held, that they were subjects of larceny at common law (though they were extinct as promissory notes) as valuable property of the country bankers, under the description of pieces of paper each respectively stamped with a stamp, &c. R. v. Clarke, E. T. 1810,

C. C. R. 181.

And in the above case the principle was laid down, that 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 larceny. 2 Russ. 147. n (t.)

Prisoner was indicted for the receiving of stolen notes of a country bank which had been paid by a London bank, who were goods and chat- their agents, and were stolen while in the course of being sent down again to the country bankers for the of being purpose reissued; they were described in some counts as pieces of paper of great value, being stamped, &c. of the goods and chattels of J. W., and in others as valuable securities, of the property of J. W. on case reserved, some of the judges doubted whether they could properly be called valuable securities; but, if not, they all thought they were goods and chattels; and that the conviction was right. M. T. 1829, R. v. Vyse, 1 R. & M. 218.

Country bank notes, not in

A case is cited on which it was ruled that it was not felony within 2 G. 2. c. 25. (now repealed) to steal bankers' notes comwithin 2 G. 2. pletely executed, but which had never been put into circulation;

circulation, not

on the ground that no money was due upon them. Anon. cor. as promissory Ld. Ellenb. C. J., Carlisle, 1802, 2 Leach, 1061. n. (b) 2 Russ. notes.

147.

In a prosecution on 7 G. 3. c. 50., relating to larcenies and embezzlements in the post office, it appeared that country bank notes having been paid by the bankers in London, were purloined at the post office, while on their passage back to the country bank for the purpose of being reissued: it was objected, that being "paid notes" they did not fall within the act, having no longer the value or force of promissory notes. A majority, however, of the judges were of opinion, that the notes fell within the description of promissory notes mentioned in the act; that they were not cancelled, and would be available in the hands of holders for valuable consideration against the makers. Tr. T. 1812, R. v. Ranson, C. C. R. 232.

But where one was compelled by duress to make a promissory note on stamped paper, before prepared by the prisoner, who was present during the time, and withdrew the note as soon as it was made, this was holden not to be a felony within the statute 2 G. 2. (now repealed); for, according to some of the judges, that is confined to available securities in the hands of the party robbed, which this was not, being of no value while in the hands of the maker himself. Yet, even if it were, according to others, this was never in his possession; his signature having been procured by duress to a paper which during the whole continuing transaction was in the possession of the prisoner. Phipoe's case, 2 Leach, 673. 2 East's P. C. 599.

Paid country

bank notes, within 7 G. 3.

as promissory

notes.

Person compelled by duress

to make a promissory note.

The prisoner was indicted under 2 G. 2. (now repealed) for hav- Stealing bank ing stolen a bank post bill; but it was not set out, and it appeared post bill, under that no bank post bills were in use at the time of the passing of 2 G. 2. 2 G. 2. Held, that the court could not take notice that this instrument fell within any of the descriptions mentioned in the statute; that when the statute passed it was not properly a bill but a promissory note, and that the conviction of the prisoner was thereof wrong. Tr. T. 1822, R. v. Chard, C. C. R. 488.

Though the note charged to be stolen need not be set out, yet Indictment, the indictment must follow the description given in the statute; description of where, therefore, in a case under 2 G. 2. (now repealed), it was note. stated to be" a note commonly called a bank note," it was held

bad. R. v. Craven, C. C. R. 14.

An indictment for larceny of a promissory note may describe it Note described generally, as (ex. gr.) "One promissory note for the payment of generally. one guinea," without setting forth the note; and if the value of the thing stolen in the dwelling-house (including the note) be 40s., clergy is ousted. Milne's case, Worcester Sum. Ass. 1800, 2 East's P. Č. 602. 3 B. & P. 145.

Special Property or Possession.

be laid either in absolute or special owner.

Any one who has a special property in goods stolen may lay Property may them to be his in an indictment for larceny, as a bailee, pawnee, lessee for years, carrier, or the like; a fortiori, they may be laid to be the property of the respective owners (a), and the indictment is good either way. 2 East's P. C. 652. But if it appeared in evi

(a) But see infra, as to a lessor, next page.

The like principle is laid down in 2 Russ. 156.: "There is no doubt that there may be a sufficient ownership of the goods stolen in a person who has only a special property in them; and that they may be laid as the goods and chattels of such persons in the indictment. A lessee for years, a bailee, a pawnee, a carrier, and the like, have such special property; and the indictment will be good if it lay the property of the goods either in the real owners, or in the persons having only such special property in them."

lessee.

The law so declared in two text-books of standard authority is unquestionably not reconcileable, in all its parts, with the decisions cited above in R. v. Belstead and R. v. Brunswick. The following clear and succinct observations, which have been allowed to appear in this work, will, it is conceived, be deemed valuable in pointing out the true legal distinctions which govern cases of this nature: "If the owner parts with the right of possession for a time, so as They must be to be deprived of the legal power to resume the possession during laid as the prothat time, and the goods are stolen during that time, they cannot perty of the be described as the goods of such owner; but if the owner parts with nothing but the actual possession, and has a right to resume the pos session when he thinks fit, the goods may be described either as his goods, or his bailee's. In the latter case he does not or an instant part with the general right of possession; he confers qualified right only, which he may put an end to when he will; a the former case, he parts with the whole right of possession for he time. The bailee for safe custody, the carrier, the tailor, the awnee, have never more than a partial right; the owner may reume the goods, on satisfying their lien, when he will. The agister s in the same situation, and the decision as to him, in R. v. Woodcard, only is, that the cattle may be described as his, not that they aust. The ground of decision in R. v. Belstead and R. v. Brunsick was, that the owner had parted with the right of possession for he time, he had nothing but a reversionary interest, and could not ave brought trespass." MS. observations of Bayley B.

Goods taken under fi. fa. ownership con

tinues in perwhom writ son against issued.

Where goods taken under a fi. fa. are stolen, they may be laid s the goods of the party against whom the writ issued; for though hey are in custodia legis, the original owner continues to have a roperty in them until they are sold; and the sheriff is accountable o him for the goods so seized. A sheriff's officer seized goods nder a fi. fa. against J. S., and afterwards stole part of them; the dictment described them as the goods of J. S., and it was obected, that they ought to have been described as the goods of the heriff; but the point being saved, the judges held that, notwithtanding the seizure, the general property lay in J. S., as the loss would fall upon him if they did not go to liquidate the debt, and hat the debt continued. M. T. 1822, R. v. Eastall, 2 Russ. 158. But if it appear in evidence that the party, whose goods they Servant or feme re laid to be, had neither the property nor the possession, as is covert. usually the case of a feme covert or servant, who have in their cusody the goods of the husband or master, the prisoner ought to be acquitted. 2 East's P. C. c. 16. § 90. pp. 652, 653. Rex v. Thomas Hutchinson and Joseph Boffey, C. C. R. 412. The prisoners were tried before Richardson J., at Stafford Lent Ass. 1820. Hutchinson was convicted of stealing, and Boffey of receiving, scienter, &c., a quantity of brass, which in the first count was laid to be the property of Thomas Penn, and 20 other persons the goods of a

The goods in a dissenting chapel vested in

trustees, cannot

be described as