Page images

Coach-houses and stables are pro. prisoner, the jury will have to tected by sections 12 and 13, if consider all concomitant circumtheir situation be such as the 13th stances which tend to corroborate, section requires, and the value of or to weaken, or rebut the presumpthe property stolen be 51. at least. tion. They are too numerous to be if below 51. the offence remains as detailed, but they may be referred at common law. If there be a either to the prisoner himself, as breaking, entering, and stealing, his behaviour, or his vicinity to the and they are not within the 13th spot, or to the property, as the insection, as to locality, or there is a terval between the committal of doubt about it, (provided the value the offence and finding the prois 51.,) the indictment should be perty again, which may raise a drawn on the 12th section, and a presumption as toits identity, or its count upon the 14th section, and a having often changed hands, 2 common count for larceny should E. P. C. 656, and its nature, or also be added. Any property other matters, which can hardly be would be protected, it is appre

referred to either of these heads, hended, by these enactments, and but may be considered as part of their effects would not be limited the offence; as the fact of concealto the usual furniture of a stable, ment. Felonious intent is also reas in Seas' case, Leach, 341.

butted by any fair pretence of proShips.-The goods stolen must perty or right in the prisoner, and be such as are generally lodged in the court will direct an acquittal, ships : 2 E. P. C. 647. The words But if any acts be done which main the 17th section of 7 & 8 Geo. 4, nifest the contrary, as attempts to c 29, are “goods and merchandise,” disguise the property, they are prewhich are similar to those used in sumptive evidence of a fel, nious 24 Geo. 2, c. 25; the only differ- intent: 2 E. P. C. 659 : 1 H.P.C. ence seems to be in the & 8 Geo. 506-7. The same principle applies 4, c. 29, not limiting the value to to cases where the property is ob40s. And it would not be suffi- tained by act of law. The intent cient, in an indictment for stealing of felony is also rebutted by proof, goods from any vessel, on a certain that the goods were taken by misnavigable river, to prove in evi- take, or accident, or for a purpose dence that the vessel was aground not felonious : R. v. Dickinson ; in a dock, in a creek of the river: R. & R. 420 ; 2 H. P. C. 507-9; Leach, 357.

and where there is no evidence of Felonious intent.-The felonious intention to convert them to private intent is essential to the offence, use : semb. Van Muyden's case, R. and in order to make it felony, the & R. 118. The taking, being withintent to steal ought to be at the out fraud, may amourt only to a time when the party first gets pos- trespass : 1 H. P. C. 509; 4 Blac. session of the goods ; such a pos. Com. 232; and Phillips and Strong's session, at least, as is distinct from case, 2 E. P. C. 662, cited. If the owner; for a fraudulent intent goods are found, the felonious inoriginating afterwards, to convert tent is gathered or rebutted from the goods, is not felony; but the the concomitant circumstances, original felonious intent may be such as denying or secreting, or, collected from subsequent acts : on the contrary, by endeavour to 2 E. P. C.655. This, therefore, is discover the owner, or making pub. entirely matter of evidence. Upon lic the acquisition : Lamb's case, a simple denial of the fact by the 2 E. P. C. 664 ; Wynne's case,

Leach, 460. But the taking must ceny by the majority, one doubting be bona fide : 2 E. P. C. 664; because of the master's assent to 1 H. P. C.506; 2 H. P. C. 507 ; the felony by means of his servant. and Cartwright v. Green, 8 Ves. The next inquiry is, whether in 405. The circumstance of goods making the delivery, the owner inhaving been delivered by a third tended to part with the property, or person may be rebutted or con- only with the possession of the firmed, by the conduct of the pri- thing delivered, for, if the prosoner, and by the length of time perty be parted with, by whatever which has elapsed, from the losing fraudulent inducements tbe credit to the finding of the goods : 2 may have been raised, it cannot be E. P. C. 665.

felony. But if the hare possession The felonious intent may be re. be parted with, we must consider butted by proof that the goods whether it has been by way of were delivered to the prisoner, by charge, or as a general bailment, or or on behalf of the owner, or were for some special purpose. taken with his consent or appro- First, where the property is bation. For, if it be proved that parted with, there can be no larthere was no trespass or felonious ceny, however fraudulent the in. intent in taking the goods, no sub- tent may have been, by which the sequent conversion of them can owner was induced to part with it. amount to felony: 2 E. P. C. 665. And a particular remedy is enacted The first inquiry, therefore, is whe- by the legislature, when such crether they were taken invito domi- dit is obtained by false tokens and no: see R. v. M‘Daniel and others, pretence. Where a contract of sale Fost. 121; 4 Blac. Com. 250. In for a horse was completed, and the this case, one Samuel conspired horse delivered to the buyer, who with M‘Daniel and others, to pro- rode away with it immediately, cure two others, ignorant of the without payingthe purchase-money, design, to rob him on the highway, the court held it not to be felony, in order to procure to themselves and said that the delivery was the reward given by act of parlia- unconditional : it was a sale, and ment for apprehending robbers on the property and possession both the highway, and he accordingly parted with : Harvey's case, Leach, went, in pursuance of such agree- 523. And where a man, being in. ment, to the place appointed, where veigled by sharpers to bet with the supposed robbery was effected. them, parts with bis money, under It was held not to amount to the idea that it was fairly won, it felony. But it is otherwise where was held not to be felony : R. v. there is no concerting with the Nicholson, 2 Leach, 698. But where offender, or where merely a facility possession only, as a deposit for is given to commit the offence: stakes, is intended to be parted Mordin's case, Fost. 129. See, also with, it is felony : R. v. Robson, R. v. Eggington, 2 E. P.C. 666. R. & R. 413; and R. v. Horner, 1

In this case, the owner of goods, Leach, 305. And where a servant knowing of an intention in the pri- (without the master's consent,) took soners to steal, allowed his servant, bills of exchange wbich were good (who had plotted to assist the for nothing, in payment, held that thieves,) to open the outer door to it was no larceny, the owner's serthem, into the bouse, where they vant baving parted with the probroke open inner apartments, and perty, by accepting such in pay. took the goods. It was held lar- ment: Ř. v. Parks, ? Leach, 703. And similarly, although the credit tion is not essential to complete be obtained by fraudulently using the offence: R. v. Sharpless, 1 the name of another person, to Leach, 108. Similarly, where a whom in truth the credit was in- bill was delivered to the prisoner, tended to be given, if the delivery for the purpose of being discounted, was made by the owner, or any who ran away with it before payperson having power of disposal for ment, it was held felony, as the that purpose : 2 E. P. C. 672, property had not been parted with: Coleman's case, 1 Leach, 339, and R. v. Aickles, 1 Leach, 330. In Atkinson's case, 2 E. P. C. 673; all these cases it is evident that the which cases are distinguished from property was not parted with, that Noah Pearce's case, id. 603. on that such an intentiou never could bave ground. In Wilkin's case, 2 Leach, existed in the minds of the owners, 586, the person from whom the that the delivery was strictly congoods were obtained by the frau- ditional and qualified. But where dulent representation, was only the circumstances of a case show intrusted with a bare charge of that the owner, or some person them for a particular purpose; in having a general power of disposing, this case, the possession of the although deceived by fraudulent remaster still continued by the hands presentations, really intended to of the servant. From these cases, part with property in the goods, we may deduce a rule by which it there it is fraud, and not felony: see may be decided, whether the pro- R. v. Adams, R. & R. 225; (and perty, or merely the possession, has see ante, title, “ Cheating "). It is been parted with, (when the deli. apprehended that this principle will very has been made by another be found to apply to all cases, as than the owner,) namely, by con- to the parting either with the prosidering whether such person had perty, or merely the possession : a general, or only a limited power see Cockwaine's case, Leach, 562; of disposal : in the first case, he Wilkin's case, id. 586; Chapelle's may part with the property; in the case, id. 698 ; Hench's case, R. & second, he cannot.

R. 163. The latter case was deBut the property is not con- cided upon that of Rex v. Wilkins, sidered as having been parted with, (supra,) and upon the ground, it wherever the delivery, from the cir- is apprehended, that the person cumstances, must be considered who made the delivery bad only a conditional; for instance, when a limited power of disposal, or a bare sale is incomplete : R. v. Sharpless, charge, and could not, conse1 Leach, 108, or wherever the goods quently, part with the property in have been delivered, by way of the goods. Similarly, where the pledge, or the like, to have them delivery is by way of pledge or returned, as in Patch's case, 1 security, the property is not parted Leach, 273, 2 E. P. C. 678; with by the owner, and, conseMoore's case, 1 Leach, 354; Wat. quently, larceny may be committed son's case, 2 Leach, 730. In these if the delivery were obtained frau. cases the possession was obtained dulently, and with intent to steal : by fraud, with intent to steal, but 2 E. P. C. 678; Patch's case, 1 the property was not parted with. Leach, 273; Moore's case, 1 Leach, Where there has not been a suffi- 354 ; Watson's case, 2 Leach, 730; cient delivery to change the pro- R. v. Horner, Leach, 305; and R. perty, the finding by the jury, of v. Robson, R. & R. 413; and see the preconceived fraudulent inten- distinction between this case and


R. v. Nicholson, 2 E. P. C. 669, Under the second head are in. supra.

cluded those cases where, by the Where the property remains delivery, a special property is without doubt in the original passed, and a legal possession, disowner, the only question is, whe- tinct from the owner, is acquired. ther possession has been so far The cases where the property is parted with, as to exclude the idea actually changed by the delivery of trespass in the taker. Therefore, have been considered, and it has it is necessary to examine whether been seen that felony cannot, in such possession was parted with, such cases, be committed. There either by way of charge, general is another case, where, although bailment, or delivery for a special the actual property still remains in purpose. First, where the legal the owner, a special property and possession remains in the owner, legal possession, distinct from the larceny may be committed, as if owner, would be acquired, if there no such delivery had been made. was no fraudulent intent in the obSecondly, where, by the delivery, a taining possession. This includes special property, and consequently, all cases, where the original delilegal possession would be acquired, very was in pursuance of a conif there were no fraud, it amounts tract, and every case of bailment. to larceny, if such delivery were Where a legal possession, primâ. fraudulently procured, with feloni- facie, exists, distinct from ous intent to convert such property. owner, the person so entitled canThirdly, after determination of a not commit larceny, as in every contract, larceny may be commit- case of bailment and delivery by ted. Under the first head are in contract. In such cases, the primâ cluded all cases where the persons facie legal possession can only be to whom the delivery is made, rebutted by evidence tending to have but a bare charge or custody show,- 1st, that possession has been of them, or a special use, as in obtained with a felonious intention, the case of servants (see supra); by fraud, threat, or duress; or, Chipchase's case, Leach, 805; R. 2dly, that the privity of contract is v. Waite, id. in notis, and the dis- determined by some precedent tinction taken between them, or wrongful act of the bailee; or, guests in the owner's house. And 3dly, that it is determined accord. journeymen to whom yarn or silk ing to the intention of the parties, is delivered to be worked in the 1st, By evidence of a precedent master's house : S. P. C.25, and 2 felonious intention, as where a pri. E. P. C. 682. But it is otherwise, soner hired a horse, on pretence of where the article is delivered to a taking a journey, but, in truth, weaver out of the house ; he has with intent to sell it, as was evithus a special property, and to denced by his doing so, directly he make it larceny, a preconceived obtained possession : R. v. Pears, intent to defraud must, it is ap- 1 Leach, 253; Charlwood's case, prehended, be shown, which would Leach, 456 ; Major Semple's case, bring it under the second head. Leach, 470. But it must be recol. Under this principle may be in- lected, that in cases of bailment or cluded cases, where the possession delivery by contract, the prisoner is allowed in the presence of the must be acquitted, unless there be owner : see Clusser's case ; Lord such evidence as will prove the Raym. 275; and see 2 E. P. C. felonious intention to have existed, 684.

when the goods were first ob107;

fained ; for, if such intention be As where a carrier breaks open a not proved to have existed origi- package committed to him, the nally, no subsequent act of conver- contract is by this act determined, sion can be evidence of it, so as to and the property revesis in the constitute a new felonious taking: owner, so as to make any subsequent R. v. Banks, R. & R. 441. If, conversion felony: 1 H.P. C. 504 ; therefore, a person obtain posses. 1 Haw. P. C. C, 33, s. 5; 2 Inst. sion of goods by a lawful delivery,

2 E. P. C. 695. But if the without fraud, although he after- act which determines the contract, wards convert them to his use, he and the act of conversion, be one cannot be guilty of felony; nor and the same, or contemporaneous, does it make any difference whe- as where the porter carries off the ther the purpose for which the de- goods and sells them without livery was made be ended or not, breaking them, it is only breach as to time or place: R. & R. 441. of trust, see supra and cases cited; 2dly, When the privity of contract therefore, the wrongful act must be is determined by some precedent precedent to the conversion : see wrongful act of the bailee,-by any also R. v. Brazier, supra. 3dly, wrongful act of the bailee incon- By intention of the parties, as sistent with the contract, it is de- where the package delivered to the termined, and the property revests carrier had reached its destination: in the owner, although the actual 1 H. P. C.5C4-5. possession remain in the bailee.


of the most

1 Ed. I, c. 1. I. Be it enacted, &c., that whatsoever person or persons, The penalty from and after the first day of May next coming, shall de- for speaking prave, despise, or contemn the said most blessed sacra.

irreverently ment, in contempt thereof, by any contemptuous words, or blessed saby any words of depraving, despising, or reviling; or what crament. person or persons shall advisedly in any other wise contemn, despise, or revile, the said most blessed sacrament, contrary to the effects and declaration abovesaid ; that then, be or they shall suffer imprisonment of his or their bodies, and make fine and ransom at the king's will and pleasure ; and for full and effectual execution of the premises before devised, ordained, and enacted by this act, he it further. more enacted, by the authority of this present parliament, that immediately after the first day of May next coming, the justices of peace, or three of them at the least, whereof one of them to be of the quorum, in every shire of this realm, and Wales, and all other places within the king's dominions, shall have full power and authority by virtue ofthis act, as well to take information and accusation by the oaths and depositions of two able, honest, and lawful persons at

« PreviousContinue »