The evidence is also the same with the like exception. Where a man went into a pawnbroker's shop, and laid down eleven thimbles on the counter, saying, "I want five shillings on them;" the shopman asked him if they were silver, and he said they were; but the shopman, upon testing them, found they were not, and gave the man into custody: this was holden to be an attempt to obtain money by false pretences, and the party was convicted. R. v. Ball, Car. & M. 249; and see R. v. Hollaway, ante, p. 376.

Cheat, at Common Law.

See upon this subject, 2 East, P. C. 816-825. Russ. 275-286. It may now be punished with hard labour, as well as imprisonment. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 29. Ante, p. 184.

12. Receiving Goods stolen, &c.

Receiving Stolen Goods.

Indictment against Principal and Receiver.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their

day of

to wit. South present, that A. B., on the in the year of our Lord feloniously did steal, take, and carry away [two cloth coats and five linen shirts] of the goods and chattels of C. D. And the jurors aforesaid upon their oath aforesaid do further present that E. F., on the day and year aforesaid, feloniously did receive the goods and chattels above mentioned [or four linen shirts, being parcel of the goods and chattels above mentioned] so as aforesaid feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away, he the said E. F. then well knowing the said goods and chattels [last mentioned] to have been feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [Formerly the offence of receiving stolen goods was a misdemeanor only; when of course the receiver could not be indicted with the principal felon. By stat. 3 W. & M. c. 9, 8. 4, and by stat. 5 Ann. c. 31, 8.5, the receiver was made an accessory after the fact; since which he may be indicted with the principal,— —or alone after the principal has been convicted,- —or alone as for a substantive felony, whether the principal be convicted or amenable to justice or not. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 54. See the next form.

As to receiving a part only of the goods stolen, where the indictment charged the principal with stealing a live sheep,

of the goods and chattels of C. D., and charged the receiver with receiving twenty pounds weight of mutton, part of the goods so as aforesaid feloniously stolen, the judges held it to be correct. R. v. Cowell and Green, 2 East, P. C. 617. And the same, if the whole of the chattel be received, after it has been converted into something of a different form from what it had when stolen. But where one of two prisoners was indicted for stealing six bank-notes of 100l. each, and the other for receiving them, and it appeared that the one after stealing them, got them changed for 201. notes, some of which the other received: it was holden that the latter could not be convicted, for he did not receive the notes that were stolen. R. v. J. & G. Walkley, 4 Car. & P. 132.

As to the punishment of the principal felon, see ante, tit. Larceny."

Receiver,-felony, transportation for not more than fourteen years, or less than seven ;—or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 4] for not more than three years, and if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped, if the court shall think fit. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 54. As to the venue, see ante, p. 71. Costs, ante, p. 186; and costs of apprehension, ante, p. 189.

Indictment against a Receiver as for a substantive

Felony.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord feloniously did receive [four linen shirts] of the goods and chattels of C. D., then lately before stolen, taken, and carried away by a certain evil-disposed person; he the said A. B. then well knowing the said goods and chattels to have been feloniously stolen: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [Where the indictment stated the larceny to have been committed by a certain "evil-disposed person," without saying "to the jurors aforesaid unknown," Tindal, C. J., held it to be sufficient; for the offence is, not the receiving of stolen goods from any particular person, but receiving them knowing them to have been stolen. R. v. Jervis, 6 Car. & P. 156. Thomas's case, 2 East, P. C. 781, S. P. For the same reason, it is unnecessary to state that the defendant received them from" the said evil-disposed person."

By stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 15, after reciting that it often happens that the principal in a felony is not in custody or amenable to justice, although several accessories to such felony, or receivers at different times of stolen property the

subject of such felony, may be in custody and amenable to justice, for the prevention of several trials, it is enacted that any number of such accessories or receivers may be charged with substantive felonies in the same indictment, notwithstanding the principal felon shall not be included in the same indictment, or shall not be in custody or amenable to justice. And these several accessories may, it seems, be all included in the same count, as if they had jointly received the property; for by sect. 14, upon an indictment against two or more for jointly receiving stolen goods, the jury may find all or any of them guilty, who shall be proved to have separately received any portion of the goods, knowing the same to have been stolen.

Felony; transportation for not more than fourteen years, or less than seven ;—or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 4] for not more than three years, and if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped, if the court shall think fit. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 54. As to costs, see ante, p. 186; and as to costs of apprehension, ante, p. 189.

Indictment for Stealing and Receiving.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B. and E. F., on the day of, in the year of our Lord -, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away [two cloth coats and five linen shirts] of the goods and chattels of C. D.: against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. (Second count.) And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said A. B. and E. F., on the said day of, in the year aforesaid, feloniously did receive [two cloth coats and five linen shirts] of the goods and chattels of C. D., then lately before stolen, taken, and carried away by a certain evil-disposed person, they the said A. B. and E. F. then well knowing the said last-mentioned goods and chattels to have been feloniously stolen: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [By stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 46, 8. 3, " in every indictment for feloniously stealing property, it shall be lawful to add a count for feloniously receiving the same, knowing it to have been stolen; and in any indictment for feloniously receiving property knowing it to have been stolen, it shall be lawful to add a count for feloniously stealing the same property; and where any such indictment shall have been preferred and found against any person, the prosecutor shall not be put to his election, but it shall be lawful for the jury who shall try the same, to find

a verdict of guilty, either of stealing the property, or of receiving it knowing it to have been stolen; and if such indictment shall have been preferred and found against two or more persons, it shall be lawful for the jury who shall try the same, to find all or any of the said persons guilty, either of stealing the property or of receiving it knowing it to have been stolen, or to find one or more of the said persons guilty of stealing the property, and the other or others of them guilty of receiving it knowing it to have been stolen." And the prosecutor is not confined to one count for receiving, but there may be as many counts for receiving as there are for stealing. R. v. Beeton, 2 Car. & K. 960. Where the second count charged a receiving of the goods "so as aforesaid feloniously stolen" (referring to the first count), and the defendant was acquitted on the first count and found guilty on the second, —it was moved in arrest of judgment that as the defendant was acquitted of the stealing, it was tantamount to finding that the goods were not stolen, and therefore a receiving of them could not be an offence: but the court held that whether this were so or not, the finding of the jury on one count, could not, in arrest of judgment, be used to impeach their finding upon another, however contradictory they might be, and therefore the verdict on the second count must be deemed correct. R. v. Craddock, 15 Shaw's J.P. 20. The count for receiving, in the above form, it will be perceived, is for a substantive felony; and it must necessarily be so. Where the indictment, preferred in Dorsetshire, contained a count against two men for stealing a sheep in the county of Dorset, and one count against a third party for receiving it in the county of Somerset, as for a substantive felony, but alleging it to be the same sheep as was mentioned in the former count : the court of criminal appeal held that the party ought not to have been convicted on the last count, as it did not show upon the face of it how a court in the county of Dorset should take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed in the county of Somerset. R. v. Martin, 2 Car. & K. 950. Such a case however cannot occur now, for it is no longer necessary to state the place where the offence was committed in the body of the indictment; 14 & 15 Vict. c. 23, ante, p. 85; and now it will simply be a question at the trial whether the facts proved bring the case within the jurisdiction of the court. Also, the better mode of framing the indictment, is to have each count against all the defendants, as in the above form, and then leave the jury to find them all guilty on one of the counts, or some on one count and some on another, according to the evidence.

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove—

1. The larceny, as ante, pp. 371, 369. The principal felon may be a witness against the receiver; Patram's case, 2 East, P. C. 782. Haslam's case, Id. ; and where two men, Hinks and Weywood, were indicted for stealing, and Williams for receiving, and Weywood pleaded guilty, and was then called as a witness for the prosecution against the other two: the judges held that he was a competent witness. R. v. Hinks et al., 2 Car. & K. 462. 1 Den. C. C. 84. See ante, pp. 153, 154. And he may now be a witness, even although judgment have been passed upon him. See stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, s. 1, ante, p. 155. But a confession by the principal, cannot be read in evidence against the receiver, for any purpose. Where the principal felon made a confession before the magistrate, in the presence of the receiver, not only of his own guilt, but also of matters affecting the prisoner as receiver, the judge at the trial of the receiver as for a substantive felony, received evidence of the confession as far as respected the principal's guilt, in proof of the larceny, but not what was said in it with respect to the prisoner: the prisoner being convicted, the judges held the conviction to be wrong, as the confession of the principal was not admissible in evidence against the receiver for any purpose; and many of the judges held, that even if the principal were convicted, and the indictment against the receiver stated the guilt only, and not the conviction, the conviction could not be received in evidence to prove it. R. v. Turner, Ry. & M. 347. But if the indictment state the conviction of the principal, the record of the conviction or an examined copy of it, is clearly evidence to prove it; see R. v. Baldwin, R. & Ry. 241; and in R. v. Blick, 4 Car. & P. 277, this was allowed by Bosanquet, J., even although it appeared to be a conviction on a plea of guilty. But the receiver may in all cases controvert the guilt of the principal: if tried with the principal, he may avail himself of every matter of fact, and every point of law, tending to his acquittal, for it necessarily and directly tends to his own acquittal; or if the receiver be tried alone, he is not concluded even by the record of the principal's conviction, but may notwithstanding controvert his guilt. Fost. 365.

Where the larceny is stated to have been committed by a person unknown, proof that it was done by J. S. will not support the indictment. R. v. Walker, 2 Camp. 264. But where it was so stated, the judges held it to be no objection that the grand jury had at the same assizes found a bill for larceny of the same goods against J. S. R. v. Bush, R. & Ry. 372.