of the thief, who was about to be called as a witness to establish He who steals goods belonging to a parish church may be indicted for stealing the goods of the parishioners. 1 Haw. c. 33. § 29. 2 Russ. 45. It is said, that he who takes goods from a chapel, or abbey, during vacation, may be indicted for stealing bona capella or 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 (now repealed), was held not to be confined to articles used for divine worship.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. 1 Hale, 514. 2 East's P. C. c. 16. § 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 naming themselves administrator, ordinary, executor, or administrator. 1 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. Name of office or description, sufficient after verdict. Property vested in trustees. Property vested in directors named by a corporate body. Property vested in a corporate body. Ownership under particular acts. 7 G. 4. c. 64. Property of partners, and joint-owners; 7 G. 4. c. 64. of counties, &c.; But now by stat. 7 G. 4. c. 64. § 20., judgment shall not be stayed or reversed, on the ground that any persons mentioned in an indictment or information are designated by a name of office, or other descriptive appellation, instead of their proper names. This statute, however, does not apply to objections taken upon demurrer. 2 Russ. 164. 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 name. O. B. 1789, R. v. Sherington and Bulkey, 1 Leach, 513. 2 Russ. 165. "Guardians of the poor" of seven parishes were incorporated by a local act, and were directed to name twelve directors, in whom was vested all the property of the concern; in an indictment 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. The prisoners were indicted for cutting down trees growing on a close, which by statute was vested in "the churchwardens of 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. O. B. 1783, R. v. Patrick and Pepper, 1 Leach, 253. East's P. C. c. 22. § 7. p. 1059. There are some cases where the ownership of goods and the mode of describing the property in them, have been regulated by the provisions of particular acts of parliament. Thus, by 7 G. 4. c. 64. § 14., to remove the difficulty of stating the names of all the owners of property in the case of partners and other joint owners,' it is enacted, "That in any indictment or information 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." 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 misdemeanor, committed on or with respect to any house, build ing, gate, machine, lamp, board, stone, post, fence, or other thing, 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." 66 Property of turnpike trustees. 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 all and singular the goods, chattels, furniture, provisions, clothes, linen, and wearing apparel, tools, utensils, materials, and things 55 G. 3. c. 137. Property in provided for the goods, &c. to be vested in Overseers. use of the poor whatsoever, had and to be had, bought, procured, or provided for the use of the poor of any parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, shall be, and the same is hereby vested in the overseers of the poor of such parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, for the time being, and their successors in office, for the purposes of this act, who are hereby empowered to bring or cause to be brought any action or actions, or to prefer or order the preferring of any bill or bills of indictment against any person or persons who shall steal, take, or carry away, or buy or receive any such goods, chattels, provisions, clothes, linen, furniture, wearing ap parel, tools, utensils, materials, or things whatsoever as aforesaid, or any part thereof; and in every such action and indictment the said goods, chattels, provisions, clothes, linen, wearing apparel, tools, utensils, materials, and things shall be laid or described to be the property of the overseers of the poor for the time being of such parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, without stating or specifying the name or names of all or any of such overseers: Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend to repeal any of the provisions contained in any act or acts of parliament, whereby the property of and in any such goods, chattels, furniture, provisions, clothes, linen, wearing apparel, tools, utensils, materials and things is or may be vested in any other person or persons jointly with, or independent of, the overseers of the poor of any parish or parishes. township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places." Not to repeal provisions in local acts. Went's case. An indictment for stealing goods may, under 55 G. 3., being of this parish of 4. the peace, Thomas King Went was tried before Burrough J. at Hereford Spring Ass. 1818, on an indictment which charged that he on 29th January, 58 G. 3. with force and arms, at the parish of Kington in the said county, six pounds weight of pork of the value of state them to be 4s. (and other goods, specifying the goods and value), of the the goods of the goods and chattels and property of the overseers of the poor for overseers of the the time being of the parish of Kington aforesaid, then and there poor for the time being found, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away, against &c. The prisoner at the time the felony was committed was governor of the workhouse of the parish of Kington. And it was proved by witnesses, and by the confession of the prisoner, that he had committed a felony by stealing goods which were the property of the overseers at the time the felony was committed. But, on attending to the form of the indictment, a doubt arose whether it was not uncertain, inasmuch as it alleges that the stolen goods were the goods, chattels, and property of the overseers of the poor of the parish of Kington for the time being, and not that they were so at the time of the felonious stealing, taking, and carrying away the same. The jury found the prisoner guilty of the felony, and upon reference to the judges, they thought that the indictment sufficiently imported that the goods were at the time of the theft the property of the then overseers. Conviction right. R. v. Went, Hereford Sp. Ass. 1818, E. T. 1818, C. C. R. 359. And see per Burrough J. in Addey v. Woolley, 3 Moore, Description of C. P. 22. II. Indictment, Trial, and Punishment. The property stolen should be described with sufficient cerproperty taken. tainty to enable the jury to know, whether the article proved to have been stolen is the same with that on which the indictment is founded, and so as to enable defendant to plead his acquittal or conviction to a subsequent indictment on the same charge: it is necessary, also, that it should appear on the face of the indictment, that the thing taken is such whereof larceny may be committed; as in case of stealing a pheasant, it must state that it was either dead, tame, or confined. (a) 2 Russ. 168. scribed as sepa rate, bad. Prisoner being indicted for stealing one bushel of oats, one of Articles mixed chaff, and one of beans, it was proved, that when he stole them together, dethey were all mixed together; and Bayley J. directed an acquittal, on the ground that the indictment ought to have described it as a certain mixture, consisting of, &c. Chelmsford Sp. Ass. 1819, R. v. Kettle, 3 Chitt. Cr. L. 947. n. a. The prisoners were indicted for stealing six handkerchiefs: it Several handappeared they were new, and all in one piece, but each several kerchiefs in one handkerchief was designated by the pattern, and it was customary piece. to charge them as a piece of so many handkerchiefs. The judges held the description proper. Tr. T. 1824, R. v. Nibbs and Yeums, 1 R. & M. 25. Where a statute used a general and also a more specific term of Statute using description, the former including the latter, as cow and heifer; general and held, that an indictment for stealing a cow was not sustained specific terms. by proof that he stole a heifer. Cooke's case, 1 Leach, 105. 1 Russ. 169. Where the prisoner was indicted for stealing two colts, and it appeared that one of the animals stolen was a mare rising four years old, and the other a yearling filly, on ca. res., the judges held, that as colts were not named in the statute, they could not take notice that they were of the horse species, and consequently that clergy was not taken away. (b) E. T. 1820, R. v. Beaney, C. C. R. 416. In another case, however, the judges held that an indictment for stealing a mare, was supported by evidence of stealing a mare filly; for that foals and fillies are included in the terms of the above stat. M. T. 1822, R. v. Welland, C. C. R. 494. Indictment for stealing a colt A filly may be described as a mare. Money, descrip An indictment for stealing 107. in monies numbered is not sufficient; it ought to specify the pieces of which it consisted. E. T. tion of. 1822, R. v. Fry, C. C. R. 482. 66 It has been decided, that an indictment for stealing notes, or Notes, &c. other securities, must follow correctly some of the descriptions of property given in the statute. Thus, an indictment for stealing a note, commonly called a bank-note," was held bad. R. v. Craven, C. C. R. 14. 2 Russ. 170. notes. The prisoner was indicted under 39 G. 3. c. 85. (now repealed), Acc. bankfor embezzling" divers (to wit) nine bank-notes for the payment of divers sums, &c. amounting to a certain sum, to wit, the sum of 91., &c., and of the value of 91., &c." It was held, upon writ of error, that this was sufficient; and per Le Blanc J., "Where a specific thing is made the subject of larceny, it is only necessary to describe it as such specific thing, it being a species of thing that is the subject of larceny: for instance, it is not ncecessary in charging a larceny of sheep, to describe it either as a wether, ewe, or lamb; so also, it may be said of bank-notes, it is not necessary to describe a bank-note particularly, as a bank(a) See ante, p. 456. (b) 2 & 3 Edw. 6. c. 33., which mentions "horse, gelding, or mare," |