Page images
PDF
EPUB

prisoner, as for larceny, these facts were proved, and the servant in his evidence said that he would not have delivered the oxen until he was paid: the jury being of opinion that the prisoner never meant to have paid for the oxen, found him guilty; and the judges afterwards held the conviction to be right. R. v. Gilbert, Ry. & M. 185. So, where the prisoner, under pretence of buying four casks of bristles, obtained a delivery order to a wharfinger for them, undertaking to pay cash for them before they should be taken out of the cart at his door; but instead of taking them to his house or shop, he had them taken to a warehouse in a different direction, and endeavoured to sell them: the jury having found that the prisoner had no real intention of buying the goods, but merely to get them by fraud from the owner, the judge held this to be larceny. R. v. Pratt, Ry. & M. 250. So, where upon an indictment for larceny, it appeared that the prisoner ordered the articles, mentioned in the indictment, of a tradesman, and desired them to be sent at a certain hour to the coach office, and he should pay for them; the tradesman took the goods, packed in a case, and there met the prisoner, who pretended that a friend from whom he was to receive the money had not come; he said he was to receive 2001. from his friend at Tom's coffee house, at seven o'clock that evening, and appointed with the tradesman to meet him there at that time; and it was agreed that in the mean time the goods should be left with the book-keeper at the coach office, the prisoner saying that he was going to Manchester the next day by the coach, and would take the package with him; the prisoner however called in about two hours afterwards, told the book-keeper that he had changed his mind, and took away the goods; the tradesman called in the evening at the coffee house, but the prisoner was not there; but he was afterwards found at a house on the other side of the river, with the case unpacked, and the goods all about the room; the prosecutor swore that he never intended to part with the goods until the money was paid; and the jury were of opinion that when the prisoner first called on the tradesman, he had no intention of buying and paying for the goods, but merely gave the order for the purpose of getting the goods out of the possession of the tradesman, and converting them to his own use: the prisoner being convicted, the judges held the offence to be larceny. R. v. John Campbell, Ry. & M. 179. Where one Greatrix, in the character of servant to Sharpless, left a note at a hosier's, ordering some silk stockings to be sent to his master's lodgings; the hosier accordingly took six pair as directed, Greatrix opened the door to him, and introduced him into a parlour where Sharpless was sitting in his dressing gown, his hair being just dressed, and an unusual quantity of powder over his face; Sharpless looked at the stockings,

and inquired the price, and without making any agreement, sent the hosier back for some pieces of silk for breeches and a pair of black silk stockings with French clocks; the hosier hung the six pair of stockings on the back of a chair, and went back for the silk, &c., and during his absence Greatrix and Sharpless decamped with the goods, and one of them pawned them; being indicted for larceny and convicted, the judges held the conviction to be right, for there was not a sufficient delivery of the stockings to change the property. R. v. Sharpless and Greatrix, 2 East, P. C. 675,1 Leach, 108. So, where the prisoner met a tradesman's apprentice going along Ludgate-hill with two parcels under his arm, directed to a Mr. Heath, and asked him if he were going to Mr. Heath, and the lad answered that he was; the prisoner then gave the lad a parcel, (which was afterwards found to contain two dishclouts of no value,) and desired him to take it to his master directly, that he might send it to a Mr. Brown, and saying that the two parcels the lad had were for him, he took them from him with the lad's consent; after parting from him however, the lad began to think that he had done wrong, and he followed him and asked him if he were Mr. Heath, and he said he was, upon which the lad was satisfied and went back to his master: the prisoner being convicted of larceny, the judges held the conviction to be right. R. v. Wilkins, 2 East, P. C. 673. So, if a man go into a shop, under pretence of buying goods, and upon their being given to him to look at, he run away with them,—or if a man go to a market, and obtain a horse for the purpose of trying its paces, and ride away with it,-this is larceny. 1 Hawk. c. 33, s. 15.

[ocr errors]

But where the prisoner was indicted for horse stealing, and it appeared that the prosecutor being at a fair with a horse for sale, the prisoner, who was known to him, met him, and proposed to purchase it, and after walking together in the fair, and after viewing the horse, the prosecutor said he should have it for 87., and ordered his servant to deliver it to him; upon which the prisoner mounted the horse, telling the prosecutor he would return immediately and pay him, to which the prosecutor replied very well," and the prisoner then rode away and never returned: Gould, J., ordered an acquittal, saying that there was a complete contract of sale and delivery, and the prosecutor had wholly parted with the property as well as the possession. R. v. Harvey, 2 East, P. C. 669. 2 Leach, 523. So, where the prisoner purchased a piece of silk of the prosecutor, and told him to send it that evening, to No. 6, Arabella-row, and he would pay him for it; the prosecutor accordingly sent his shopman with it, who received two bills of exchange for 107. each (the silk amounting to 127. 108.), the prisoner saying that he would call and make further purchases; the transaction was regularly entered in the prosecutor's books, and the prisoner debited with the silk:

but the bills were found to be worth nothing, no such person as the drawer being known by the drawee, and the prisoner himself was not seen afterwards until he was apprehended being indicted for larceny, the judges held that it did not amount to that offence, as the property in the silk as well as the possession had been parted with. R. v. Parks, 2 East, P. C. 671. 2 Leach, 703. So, where the prosecutor, a hatter, sold a hat to one of his customers, and the prisoner, knowing the circumstance, sent a messenger to the prosecutor for the hat in the name of the customer, and obtained it: the judges held this not to be larceny, but an obtaining of the hat by a false pretence merely, for the hatter had parted with the property as well as the possession. R. v. Phineas Adams, R. & Ry. 225. So, where the prisoner sent a note to one Dunn, in the name of Broad, Dunn's friend, asking for the loan of 31., and obtained it: this was holden by the judges not to be larceny, because the property as well as the possession of the money was intended to pass from the lender. R. v. Atkinson, 2 East, P. C. 673.

Where the prosecutor, a tallow chandler, was in the habit of purchasing fat from butchers, which was weighed in scales which were in a room upon the premises; the prisoner, a servant in his employ, intending to defraud his master, took a quantity of fat out of his master's store, put it into the scales, and pretended that it was fat sent for sale by one Robinson a butcher; the fraud however being detected, the prisoner ran away: being indicted for larceny and convicted, the case was reserved for the opinion of the criminal appeal court, and the judges held that the taking and asportation clearly amounted to larceny; the prisoner intended to dispose of it to his own use by selling it, and it was no matter to whom it was sold. R. v. Hall, 2 Car. & K. 947 And where a workman employed to melt pig iron, and paid according to the weight of the metal drawn from the furnace and made into puddle bars, was detected in putting an old axle belonging to his master into the furnace, to increase the weight to be drawn from it; the value of the axle was about 78., but the workman would gain little more than a penny by the additional weight: being indicted as for larceny, Tindal, C. J., doubted whether it amounted to that offence, as the workman intended to render back the iron, although in another form, to his master; but he left it to the jury to say whether the defendant put the axle into the furnace, with a felonious intent to convert it to a purpose for his own profit, for if he did, it was larceny; and the jury found the prisoner guilty. R. v. Richards, 1 Car. & K. 532. But in a more recent case, where a journeyman tanner was indicted for stealing 120 skins, the property of his master, it appeared that he took the 120 skins, which had been dressed by other workmen, from the stock of his master, carried them to another part of the premises where he worked, and

put them among the skins he was dressing; and the jury found that he did not intend to remove the skins from the tannery, and dispose of them elsewhere, but that he intended to deliver them to the foreman, and get paid for them as for his own work; they found him guilty, however, under the direction of the court, and the point was reserved for the opinion of the criminal appeal court: the judges held that it was not larceny; it was but an attempt to obtain money by a false pretence. R. v. Hollaway, 2 Car. § K. 942.

Where the prisoner went to a shop and asked for change of half-a-crown, and the person attending gave him two shillings and six penny pieces; he then held out the half crown, and the other just took hold of it by the edge, but never actually got it into his custody; the prisoner immediately ran away with both the half crown and the change: being indicted for stealing the two shillings and six pennies, Park, J., held that it was larceny, but he said that if he had been indicted for stealing the half crown, he should have entertained great doubt whether the indictment would lie. R. v. Williams, 6 Car. & P. 390. So, where the prisoner was displaying a quantity of gold coin in a public house, the prosecutor asked him to change some for bank notes, which he did to a small amount; seeing that the prosecutor had a quantity of bank notes, he then offered the prosecutor to get him gold for more of them, and the prosecutor then put down notes to the amount of 351., which the prisoner took up, and saying that he would be back presently with the gold, left the place and never returned: Wood, B., held this to be larceny, if the jury believed that the prisoner, at the time he took up the notes, had the felonious intention of applying them to his own use; the property in the notes never passed from the prosecutor, for he only meant to part with his notes on the faith of receiving the gold in return, and the prisoner never meant to barter, but to steal. R. v. Oliver, 4 Taunt. 474, cit. 2 Leach, 1072. In a more recent case, upon an indictment for stealing a sovereign, it appeared that the prosecutor was treating the prisoner to some beer in a beer shop, and handed a sovereign to the landlady to pay for it, but as she had not change she put it down on the table at which he and the prisoner were sitting; the prisoner then said that he would go and get change for it, and took it up for the purpose, the prosecutor said, "you will not come back with the change," to which the prisoner answered, "never fear," and went out, but never returned; the prosecutor in his evidence said that he offered no opposition to the prisoner's taking the sovereign to get it changed, but allowed it to lie on the table after the prisoner made the offer: Coleridge, J., after conferring with Gurney, B., held that this was not larceny of the sovereign, for the prosecutor, when he permitted it to be taken away, could never have expected to receive the

same identical coin back again. R. v. Thomas, 9 Car. & P.741. It is to be remarked that in the last case, there was nothing from which the jury could infer that the prisoner at the time he took the sovereign had the felonious intent to appropriate it to his own use. Also, where the prisoner went to a tradesman's shop, and said her mistress, Mrs. Cook, a neighbour, would be obliged to him to let her have half a guinea's worth of silver, and that she would send the half guinea presently: the tradesman let her have the silver, but she never returned: this was holden to be no larceny, but a false pretence merely. Coleman's case, 2 East, P. C. 672. 1 Leach, 339. So, where upon an indictment for stealing in the house of a pawnbroker a diamond broach and other articles, it appeared that the prisoner called at the shop of the pawnbroker with duplicates of the broach, &c., mentioned in the indictment, which he had before then pawned there for 347., and desired to redeem them; he at the same time showed the pawnbroker's shopman a parcel of loose diamonds which he wished to pawn, and the shopman agreed to lend 1607. upon them; he sealed the parcel of diamonds in the shopman's presence, and gave him what he believed, at the time, to be the same parcel: the shopman then gave him the broach, &c., mentioned in the indictment, and the balance of the 1607., after deducting the 341. for which the broach, &c., were pledged, and interest; but the parcel, upon being afterwards opened, was found to contain merely some coloured stones of little value: the shopman swore that he was authorized by his master to receive money for pledges, and to lend money on them; and that when he delivered the articles in question, he parted with them entirely, believing he had received a full equivalent: this case being referred to the judges, they held that it was not larceny, because the shopman parted with the property and ownership, and not merely with the possession. R. v. Jackson, Ry. &

M. 119.

In the practice of ring-dropping (which was formerly so prevalent), if the prosecutor merely deposit his money, &c., with the pretended finder, as a security that he will account with him for his share of the produce of the property found, the offence will be larceny. R. v. Patch, 2 East, P. C. 678, 1 Leach, 238. R. v. Watson, 2 East, P. C.680. R. v. Moore, Id. 679. But if the prosecutor give him a sum of money, &c., for his share of the property found, it will not. R. v. Wilson, 8 Car. & P. 111. So, where money is obtained from a man by means of a pretended bet,-if he merely deposit the money with the party as a stakeholder, who hands it to his confederate under pretence that he has won it, the offence is larceny. R. v. Foster, Gill, Fewster, and Nicholson, R. & Ry. 413. So, where three persons in a public house acting in concert, induced the prosecutor to lodge 1007, in the hands of one

« PreviousContinue »