So, where two were indicted for this offence, and it appeared clearly in evidence that they were together and acting in concert in passing bad money; on the evening in question, one of them had passed two counterfeit sixpences, and on the other were found five more on the authority of the last case, they were both convicted, and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. R. v. Charles and William Williams, Car. § M. 259. SECTION II. Offences relating to the Post-office. 1. Persons employed by the Post-office, Stealing or Embezzling Letters. Indictment, The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that A. B., on the to wit. day of in the year of our Lord -, being then a person employed under Her Majesty's post-office, and whilst he was so employed, feloniously did embezzle, secrete, and destroy [“ steal, or shall for any purpose whatever embezzle, secrete, or destroy"] a certain post-letter of C. D., or of Her Majesty's postmaster-general, [which said post-letter then contained certain money ("chattel, money, or valuable security;" bank-notes and the notes of bankers may be described as money; 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 18, ante, p.90) of C. D., or of Her Majesty's said postmaster-general]: 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. [As to the venue, see ante, p. 73. By stat. 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 40, it shall be lawful to lay the letter or money, &c., in the postmastergeneral; it shall not be necessary to allege or prove it to be of any value; and it shall be sufficient to allege that the offender was employed under the post-office, without further stating the nature or particulars of the employment, Felony; transportation for seven years;—or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, and solitary for any portion of the time, s. 42] for not more than three years, lå. 8. 26. And if the post-letter shall contain any chattel, money, or valuable security, every such offender shall be transported for life; Id. s. 26; or for not less than seven years;—or imprisoned [with or without hard labour, and solitary for any portion of the time, s. 42] for not more than four years. Id. s. 26. Accessories before the fact, the same punishment; accessories after the fact (not being receivers) imprisonment, &c., for not more than two years. Id. s. 35. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove― And 1. That the defendant, at the time the offence was committed, was employed by the post-office. It is not necessary to prove his appointment; proof that he exercised an office under the post-office, will be quite sufficient. See ante, p. 135; and see R. v. Borrett, 6 Car. § P. 124. R. v. Rees, Id. 606. Nor is it necessary that he should have taken the oath required by stat. 9 Ann. c. 10, s. 41; Clay's case, 2 East, P. C. 580; or if it be proved that he took the oath, he cannot deny his being employed by the post-office. R. v. Milner, 14 Shaw's J. P. 449. R. v. Simpson, Id. The postmaster in a country town is of course a person so employed. where a postmistress employed a person at weekly wages, to carry the letter-bag from A. to B., but he never helped to sort the letters, &c., and she was allowed the wages in account with the post-office, such person was holden to be in the employ of the post-office. R. v. Salisbury, 5 Car. § P, 155. But where a person employed by the post-office to keep a receiving house for letters, used to be assisted in sealing and tying the letter-bag by a person whom he employed to clean boots, &c., such assistant was helden not to be in the employ of the post-office. R. v. Pearson, 4 Car. & P. 572. 2. The embezzlement, secreting, or destroying of the letter, &c., as stated in the indictment. Where the prosecutor gave a letter, unsealed, to the postmistress at A., addressed to a person at Liverpool, with one pound, for a post-office order for that amount, threepence for poundage on the order, one penny for postage, and one penny for the messenger who was to get the order at B.; the postmistress, in due course of post, delivered these to the prisoner, who was in the employ of the post-office as post-messenger from A. to B., instructing him to get the order at B., to inclose it in the letter, and to post it there; the prisoner however embezzled the money and destroyed the letter, a part of the letter being afterwards found in a box in his possession: Cresswell, J., held this to be a post-letter within the meaning of this statute, and the defendant was convicted. R. v. Bickerstaff, 2 Car. & K, 761. Where a sorter of letters at the post-office made a mistake as to two letters in sorting the parcel in which they were, and in order to avoid the penalty attached to such a mistake, he took these two letters to the water-closet and put them in, but before they escaped from the pan, he was apprehended, and the letters were found in the pan still sealed and unopened: being indicted on this statute for stealing the letters, with a count for secreting them, the jury found the facts as above mentioned; and the case being reserved for the opinion of the judges of the criminal appeal court, they held that the defendant was clearly guilty of secreting the letters, and they thought that the facts found amounted to larceny also. R. v. Wynn, 2 Car. & K. 859. Where the prisoner, a letter carrier employed by the post-office, was indicted for stealing a postletter containing a sovereign, with a count for stealing a sovereign, it appeared that the prisoner being suspected, a letter containing a marked sovereign, directed to a person in Great Windmill-street (which was in his district of delivery), was placed by one of the inspectors amongst some letters the prisoner was about to sort, and which he had to deliver that day; the letter not being delivered, the prisoner was taken into custody, searched, and the marked sovereign found in his pocket: it was objected for him, that as the letter was not put into the post in the ordinary way, it was not a post-letter within the meaning of the Act, and of this opinion were the judges; but they held that he was guilty of stealing the sovereign, and he had judgment accordingly. R. v. Rathbone, Car. & M. 220. By stat. 1 Vict. c. 36, in the interpretation clause, s. 47, the word "post-letter" is interpreted to mean any letter or packet transmitted by the post, under the authority of the postmaster-general, and a letter shall be deemed a post-letter from the time of its being delivered to a post-office to the time of its being delivered to the person to whom it is addressed; and a delivery to a letter-carrier or other person authorized to receive letters for the post, shall be a delivery to the post-office; and a delivery at the house or office of the person to whom the letter is addressed, or to him or to his servant or agent or other person considered to be authorized to receive the letter, according to the usual manner of delivering that person's letters, shall be a delivery to the person addressed." Where a letter directed to a fictitious person and place, containing two half-sovereigns, was put into a post-office, to test the honesty of the postmistress there, and she abstracted it, and took out the half-sovereigns: Pollock, C. B., held that this was not a post-letter within the Act, being altogether fictitious, and not directed to any person who ever existed; but he held that the prisoner was guilty of stealing the half sovereigns, and there being a count for larceny in the indictment, she was convicted. R. v. Ann Gardner, 1 Car. & K. 628. But in a case subsequently reserved for the opinion of the judges the contrary was holden, and Pollock, C.B., admitted that he was mistaken in his decision in Gardner's case. The case was thus: some doubt being entertained of the honesty of the prisoner, who kept a receiving house for letters. in Aldgate, a letter containing a half-sovereign, directed to a fictitious person, was dropped into the box at his receiving house, and the prisoner opened it, took out the half-sovereign, and kept both the letter and money: being indicted on this Act, for stealing a post-letter, and convicted, and the case being reserved for the opinion of the judges, they were unanimously of opinion that this was a post-letter within the Act, and that the defendant was properly convicted. R. v. John C. Young, 2 C. & K. 466. See R. v. Harley, post, p. 583. The reader will perceive, by a reference to the punishments for this offence, (ante, p. 578), that where the letter stolen or embezzled contains money, chattel, or valuable security, the offence is punishable with greater severity. Where a woman being sent with a letter to a receiving-house with a penny to pay the postage, finding the shop of the receiving-house shut, put the penny into the letter, fastened it with a pin, and dropped it into the letter box; the prisoner being a messenger in the post-office, and engaged in stamping and preparing the letters from the receiving-houses, abstracted this letter from the rest, and a constable being sent for, after a hard struggle it was taken from him: being indicted for stealing a letter containing money, Lord Denman, C. J., held it to be such within the meaning of the Act, and he was convicted. R. v. Mence, Car. § M. 234. As to a security for payment of money, see ante, p. 391. As to embezzlement of money by persons employed in the post-office, see ante, p. 462; and see R. v. Glass, 2 Car. § K. 395. 2. Stealing a Post-letter or Post-letter Bag from a Post-office, &c. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the in the year of our Lord day of did feloniously steal, take, and carry away a certain post-letter of C. D., [or of Her Majesty's postmaster-general] from a certain post-office situate in the parish of in the county of -, ["steal a post-letter bag -or a post-letter from a post letter-bag - -or steal a post-letter from a post-office, or from an officer of the post-office, or from a mail, or stop a mail with intent to rob or search the same]: 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. [As to the venue, see ante, p. 73. Felony; transportation for life, 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 28, or for not less than seven years; Id. s. 41 ;-or imprisonment, [with or without hard labour, and solitary for any portion of the time, s. 42] for not more than four years. Id. s. 41. Accessories before the fact, the same punishment; accessories after the fact (not being receivers), imprisonment, &c., for not more than two years. Id. s. 35, Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove the stealing of the letter, &c., as stated in the indictment. It is not necessary that the offender should be in the employ of the post-office. Where the prisoner, a female servant out of place, applied to a lady at Cheltenham for a situation, and referred for her character to a lady at Ross, whose service she had left; the lady at Cheltenham accordingly wrote to the lady at Ross for the character, but the prisoner went to the post-office at Ross, and representing herself to be the lady's servant, ob tained the letter and burnt it: being indicted for stealing the letter under this Act, it was objected that as it was not done lucri causâ, it was not an offence within the Act; but the prisoner being convicted, and the point being reserved for the opinion of the judges at the criminal appeal court, they held this to be a larceny of the letter, and that the prisoner was properly convicted. R. v. Elizabeth Jones, 2 Car. & K. 236. As to the interpretation of the word "post-letter," see in the last case, ante, p. 580; and as to the meaning of "postletter bag," see 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 41. See R. v. Harley, post, p. 583. 3. Stealing Money, &c., out of a Post-letter. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their day of to wit. Soath present, that A. B., on the in the year of our Lord- -, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away out of a certain post-letter of C. D., [or of Her Majesty's postmaster-general], certain money ["any chattel, money, or valuable security,"] of the said C. D., or of Her Majesty's postmaster-general: 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. [As to the venue, see ante, p. 73. |