« PreviousContinue »
Clothes and other necessaries provided for children by their Necessaries for parents, are often laid to be the property of the parents, especially
good either while the children are of tender age; but it is holden good either
way as the proway. At the sessions at the 0. B. after E. T. 1701, Tracy and perty of them Turton Js., and Lovell Recorder, doubted whether the property or of their of a gold chain, which was taken from a child's neck, who had parents. worn it for four years, ought not to be laid to be in the father. But Tanner, who had been an ancient clerk of the court, said, that it had always been usual to lay it to be the goods of the child in such case, and that many indictments which had laid them to be the property of the father had been ordered to be altered by the judges. 2 East's P. C. 654. 12 Rep. 113. 2 Russ. 160. But where the prisoner
was charged with stealing wearing ap- father contractparel, and it was laid as the property of J. W., it appeared it was od to furnish the clothes of G. W., aged nineteen, who was bound apprentice to clothes to his his father J. W., and that J. W. had covenanted to find his son son, an infant. in clothing; under these circumstances it was held, that the indictment was bad, and that the clothes were exclusively the property of the son. Forsgate's case, 0.B. 1787, 1 Leach, 463. 2 Russ. 160.
In a prosecution for stealing sheep, they were laid to be the Property laid property of S.D. and eight other persons, being his grandchildren. in surviving It appeared, that many years before s. D. and his son held a partner and infarm together, and that the flock was their joint concern. The of deceased son, and also the son's wife died, leaving eight children, after partner. which S. D. continued to use the stock as before, considering himself as acting, in respect of one moiety, for his grandchildren, who were infants. After conviction, the judges held, that the property was well described ; and that it was not necessary that the property of the thing taken should be the strict legal property. R. v. Scott, C. C. R. 13. 2 Russ. 160.
It has been held, that the property in reclaimed pheasants might Game in posbe laid in a person who was not qualified to keep or kill
session of an
game. R. v. Jones. "See antè, and 2 Russ. 161.
person. R. v. Eleanor Gaby, C.C. R. 178. The prisoner was tried and
Gaby's case. convicted before Chambre J., at Taunton Lent Ass. 1810, for The actual posgrand larceny, in stealing some drapery goods, the property of session of the Benjamin Dodge and Sarah Chilcott, widow. It was objected, goods by a surthat the indictment had misdescribed the property by alleging viving partner, it to be in Benjamin Dodge and Sarah Chilcott, concerning which of a deceased the evidence was, that the goods had been part of the joint stock partner, holden in trade of the said Benjamin Dodge and Chilcott, the late to be a sufficient husband of the said Sarah Chilcott, and were so at the time of ownership. Chilcott's death, which happened three or four days before Christmas last. He died, as the witness Dodge understood, without a will, leaving his said widow and some young children, and no administration had been granted of his effects. But the widow, from the death of her husband, acted as partner, and regularly attended the business of the shop. The goods mentioned in the indictment were stolen on the 6th of January, and on the 20th of the same month a division was made of the remaining stock, the widow taking one half, and Dodge the other half. It was contended, on the part of the prisoner, that the children, in respect of their interest under the statute of distributions, should have been named with the other two as joint proprietors, or that the pro
perty should have been alleged to be in the Ordinary and the surviving partner. But the learned judge held, that the actual possession in Benjamin Dodge and Sarah Chilcott, as owners, was sufficient, upon which the prisoner was convicted ; and the judges, on case, held the property well laid, and therefore the
conviction right. Taifs, wreck, It is generally said that larceny cannot be committed of that
wherein none have any determinate property, as of treasure-trove, waifs, &c. till seized. The same was said of wreck; but now the legislature have protected the owners of property in this state against the plunderers of it. And indeed there seems to be some incorrectness in the generality of the position with respect to the other things mentioned. As to waifs, treasure-trove, &c. the lord has no determinate property in them till seizure; but the true owner, though unknown, who has lost or been robbed of the things themselves, has still a property in them. Haw. c. 33. Ø 24. 1 Hale, 510. 2 East's P. C. 606. 2 Russ. 1138. Also
1 & 2 G. 4. c. 75. s 12. 15. 22, 23. See tit. Wreck. Property aban.
Where indeed the circumstances of the case furnish a predoned. sumption of an intended dereliction of such property on the part
of the owner, there no larceny can be committed before seizure
by the lord, because the taking is not invito domino. Ownership It is well settled that larceny may be committed by stealing where the per- goods, the owner of which is not known : and that it may be stated son of the
in the indictment that the things stolen were the goods of a perowner is un
son to the jurors unknown. But upon prosecutions of this kind, known.
some proof must be given sufficient to raise a reasonable presumption that the taking was felonious, or invito domino ; and Ld. Hale C.J. said, that he never would convict any person for stealing the goods cujusdam ignoti, merely because the person would not give an account how he came by them, unless there were due proof made that a felony had been committed of those goods. See 2 Russ. 162. i Hale, 512. 2 Hale, 290. It is said, therefore, 2 East's P. C. 651., with respect to these cases, that the true ground upon which persons so indicted may, in any instance, claim to be acquitted, when the other facts necessary to constitute the crime of larceny appear upon the evidence, seems to be a want of the proper proof that the taking was felonious, or invito domino, and not the want of any property in the true owner, who, by losing his goods, does not lose his property in them until seizure by some
other person having a right to seize in such cases. An indictment Walker's case, Glouc. Sum. Ass. 1812, 3 Campb. 264. 2 Enst's
P. C.651. It should be well observed, however, with respect to tained for stealing the goods of prosecutions for stealing goods of a person unknown, that an
indictment, alleging the goods to be the property of a person a person unknown, if it linknown, will be improper if the owner be really known : and that appear that the in such case the prisoner must be discharged of the indictment so owner is really framed, and tried upon a new one for stealing the goods of the known.
owner by name. This principle was acted upon in a case, where the indictment charged the prisoner as an accessary before the fact to a larceny; and stated, that “a certain person to the jurors unknown," committed the larceny; and that the prisoner procured the said " person unknown
person unknown" to commit it; and it appeared, from the opening of the case by the counsel for the prosecution, that the grand jury had found the bill upon the evidence
cannot be sus
of the thief, who was about to be called as a witness to establish the guilt of the prisoner. Le Blanc J. interposed, and directed an acquittal, saying, that he considered the indictment wrong in stating that the goods were stolen by “ a person unknown ; " and he asked how the person, who was the principal felon, could be alleged to be unknown to the jurors, when they had him before them, and his name was written on the back of the bill. This doctrine has been also holden to apply to the case of a receiver of stolen goods, an indictment against whom should state the name of the principal thief, if it be known.
per Dallas J. Worcester Lent Ass. 1815, 2 Russ. 258. Acc. R. v. Robinson, 1 Holt, 595.
He who steals goods belonging to a parish church may be in- Goods belonge dicted for stealing the goods of the parishioners. 1 Haw. c. 33. ing to a parishi$ 29. 2 Russ. 45.
It is said, that he who takes goods from a chapel, or abbey, Goods of a during vacation, may be indicted for stealing bona capella or chapel or abbey. bona ecclesia, being in the custody of such and such. 2 East P. C. 651. 2 Russ. 46.
The offence of sacrilege, under 1 Edw. 6. c. 12. (now repealed), was held not to be confined to articles used for divine worship. R. v. Rourk, C. C. R. 386. N.B. The property was there laid in the churchwardens.
Several persons were convicted of stealing leaden coffins from Coffins from a the vaults of a church, the property being laid in the executors. church. 2 East's P. C. 652.
Where a leaden coffin was stolen, which had lain in the ground S. P. sixty years, it was held sufficient to describe it as the property of a person unknown, though it was objected that the family of the deceased continued in the place, and that the personal representative might have been traced. Anon. cor. Buller J. Exeter Lent Ass. 1794, 2 East's P. C. 652.
In the same case it was held, that laying the coffin as the property S. P. of certain persons being the then churchwardens was bad. Ibid.
If a man die intestate, and the goods of the deceased be stolen Goods of a perbefore administration granted, such goods shall be supposed to be son deceased. the goods of the ordinary; but if a man die, having made a will and appointed an executor, the goods shall be supposed to be the goods of the executor, even before probate is granted to him. i Hale, 514. 2 East's P. C. c. 16. 8 89. p. 652. 2 Russ. 164.
Neither an ordinary, nor executor, nor administrator need shew Property laid their title specially, it being founded on their own possession, in in executor, wh ch case a general indictment lies, without naning themselves administrator, ordinary, executor, or administrator. i Hale, 514. 2 Russ. 164. &c.
And it hath been adjudged, that he who takes off a shroud from Stealing a a dead corpse, may be indicted as having stolen it from the exe- shroud: cutors of, or those who buried, the deceased, and not of the deceased himself. 2 East's P. C. 652.
But though in corpses there can be no property, wherefore to Or a corpse. steal a dead corpse is no felony ; yet it is a very high misdemeanor. 2 East's P. C. 652. Rex v. Lynn, 2 T. R. 733. Acc. R. v. Gilles, C. C. R. 366. (n).
Property vested in a body of persons ought not to be laid as Goods of a the property of that body, unless such body is incorporated, but body, not incorshould be described as belonging to the individuals who compose porated. the body. 2 Russ. 164.
7 G. 4. c. 64. But now by stat. 7 G.4. c. 64. $ 20., judgment shall not be Name of
stayed or reversed, on the ground that any persons mentioned in office or descrip
an indictment or information are designated by a name of office, tion, sufficient after verdict.
or other descriptive appellation, instead of their proper names. This statute, however, does not apply to objections taken upon
demurrer. 2 Russ. 164. Property vested
Where by statute a certain workhouse, with all its fixtures, &c. was vested in trustees, and it was enacted that, in all indictments for larceny committed there, the property should be laid in the trustees of the poor of the old Artillery Ground,” held, that it was necessary to lay the property as belonging to A. B. and C. by name, subjoining the words, “ trustees of the poor, &c.," as a description of their legal capacity; for, as the statute had not incorporated the trustees, it had not given them collectively a public
0. B. 1789, R. v. Sherington and Bulkey, 1 Leach, 513.
2 Russ. 165. Property vested
“ Guardians of the poor" of seven parishes were incorporated in directors named by a
by a local act, and were directed to name twelve directors, in corporate body. whom was vested all the property of the concern ; in an indict
ment for the embezzlement of some of their money, it was laid to be the property of “the directors of the poor, &c.;" after conviction, the judges held that it was wrong, for that it ought to have been described either as the money of the “guardians of the poor" by their corporate name, or of the individuals by name who formed the body of directors. E. T. 1824, R. v. Beacall,
1 R. & M. 15. Property vested
The prisoners were indicted for cutting down trees growing on in a corporate a close, which by statute was vested in the church wardens of body.
E.,” who were incorporated by such name, and the indictment laid the property in " A. and B. then being churchwardens of E.” Held bad, for that their corporate name alone ought to have been given ; and farther, that the private names could not be expunged as surplusage. 0. B. 1783, R. v. Patrick and Pepper, 1 Leach, 253.
East's P. C. c. 22. $7. p. 1059. Ownership There are some cases where the ownership of goods and the under parti
mode of describing the property in them, have been regulated by
the provisions of particular acts of parliament. 7 G. 4. c. 64. Thus, by 7 G. 4. c. 64.9 14., to remove the difficulty of stating Property of
the names of all the owners of property in the case of partners and partners, and joint-owners;
other joint owners,' it is enacted, “ That in any indictment or in7 G. 4. c. 64.
formation for any felony or misdemeanor, wherein it shall be requisite to state the ownership of any property whatsoever, whether real or personal, which shall belong to, or be in the possession, of more than one person, whether such persons be partners in trade, joint tenants, parceners, or tenants in common; it shall be sufficient to name one of such persons, and to state such property to belong to the person so named, and another or others, as the case may be; and whenever in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor, it shall be necessary to mention, for any purpose whatsoever, any partners, joint tenants, parceners, or tenants in common, it shall be sufficient to describe them in the manner aforesaid ; and this provision shall be construed to
extend to all joint stock companies and trustees." of counties, &c.; § 15. “In any indictment or information for any felony, or
misdemeanor, committed in, upon, or with respect to any bridge,
court, gaol, house of correction, infirmary, asylum, or other 7 G. 4. c. 64. building erected or maintained, in whole or in part, at the expense of any county, riding, or division, or on or with respect to any goods or chattels whatsoever, provided for or at the expense of any county, riding, or division, to be used for making, altering, or repairing any bridge, or any highway at the ends thereof, or any court or other such building as aforesaid, or to be used in or with
any such court or other building, it shall be sufficient to state any
such property, real or personal, to belong to the inhabitants inhabitants. of such county, riding, or division, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any of such inhabitants."
16. “ In any indictment or information for any felony Property for or misdemeanor committed in, upon, or with respect to any the use of workworkhouse or poorhouse, or on or with respect to any goods houses, &c. or chattels whatsoever provided for the use of the poor of any parish or parishes, township, or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, or to be used in any workhouse or poorhouse in or belonging to the same, or by the master or mistress of such workhouse or poorhouse, or by any workmen or servants employed therein, it shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the overseers of the poor, for the time being, of such parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places; and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of all or any of such overseers; and in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor, committed on or with respect to any materials, tools, or implements, provided for making, altering, or Materials, tools,
, repairing any highway within any parish, township, hamlet, or &c. for use of place otherwise than by the trustees or commissioners of any turn- highways. pike-road, it shall be sufficient to aver that any such things are the property of the surveyor or surveyors of the highways for the time being of such parish, township, hamlet, or place, and it shall not be necessary to specify the name or names of any such surveyor or surveyors."
§ 17.“ In any indictment or information for any felony, or Property of misdemeanor, committed on or with respect to any house, build. turnpike trusing, gate, machine, lamp, board, stone, post, fence, or other thing, tees. erected or provided in pursuance of any act of parliament for making any turnpike road, or any of the conveniences or appurtenances thereunto respectively belonging, or any materials, tools, or implements provided for making, altering, or repairing any such road; it shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the trustees or commissioners of such road, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any of such trustees or commissioners."
Ø 18.“ In any indictment or information for any felony or Matters relating misdemeanor committed on or with respect to any sewer or other to sewers. matter within or under the view, cognizance, or management of any commissioners of sewers, it shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the commissioners of sewers, within or under whose view, cognizance, or management any such things shall be; and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any of such commissioners."
Stat. 55 G. 3. c. 137. § 1. enacts, “ That the property of and in 55 G. 3. c. 137. all and singular the goods, chattels, furniture, provisions, clothes, Property in linen, and wearing apparel, tools, utensils, materials, and things goods, &c.
provided for the