1845. REGINA v. WINTER- E. V. Williams.-No, my Lord; but whatever they hold as assets one may deal with. In Shepherd's Touchstone (p), it is laid down, that "all the executors, where there be more than one, be they never so many, in the eye of the law are but as one man; in which respect the law doth esteem most acts done by or to any one of them as acts done by or to all of them. And, therefore, the possession of one of them of the goods and chattels of the deceased is esteemed the possession of them all; payment of debts by or to one of them is esteemed payment by or to them all; the sale or gift of one of them of the goods and chattels of the deceased, as the sale and gift of them all; and, although two executors be named as grantors or executors, and only one of them execute the grant, the grant would pass the entirety; a release made by or to one of them, is a release made by or to them all; and the assent of one of them to a legacy, the assent of them all; and, therefore, if there be two executors, and one of them deliver up the obligation to the debtor, whereby he is bound, the other executor shall not recover it in a detinue." Now, if one executor can deliver up a bond, so that detinue cannot be brought for it, I apprehend that it is quite clear that one of these executrixes could deal with this bill of exchange. Welsby, in reply.-With respect to the property in the bill passing by this indorsement if genuine, no authority has been cited to shew that one executrix can indorse a bill so as to pass the property in it. The word " indorsement" means, as I submit, such an indorsement as, if genuine, would transfer a title to the bill so indorsed. The case of an indorsement by a stranger was put, but that not being the indorsement of the payee of the bill, it would, legally speaking, be no indorsement at all; and if this indorsement is to be taken as the new making of a (p) Vol. 2, p. 484. bill, the prisoner would not have been charged with forging an indorsement of a bill, but with the forgery by the false making of a bill; and this would be matter of description of the instrument which was not proved as laid. The case was afterwards considered by the Judges, who held the conviction right. 1845. REGINA v. WI TER- WELCH SPRING CIRCUIT, 1846. SWANSEA ASSIZES. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE WIGHTMAN. REGINA V. WILLIAM FRAMPTON THE YOUNGER. 1846. Feb. 28th. LARCENY.-The prisoner was indicted for stealing, on A., assisted by the 29th of July, 1845, one piece of paper, whereon was B., had done work for the and C. told A. and B. that if they would bring a steped recept they shop be paid. B bought a stamp with the money of A., gether went to blank stamp and they to was given to C. to write a receipt on it. C. did so; and as the stamp lay on C.'s desk, A. signed the receipt and B. witnessed it, but neither of them ever had the sump in his possession after the receipt was written on it. C., under pretence of fetching his father's cheque-book, took away the receipt, and would not pay the money it was given for :-Held, not a larceny of the stamp. 1846. REGINA v. FRAMPTON. prisoner lived with him and managed his business; and that, the farm requiring some additional farm buildings, the prisoner had, in the summer of the year 1845, employed the prosecutor, William Harries, as a mason to do the work, Harries employing another mason, named David Williams, to assist him. It further appeared, that the prisoner superintended the work as it was going on, and paid various sums to the prosecutor, William Harries, from time to time, by cheques drawn by his (the prisoner's) father; the total amount of these cheques was £125: and when the work was completed Harries had it measured and valued, and sent an account of it to the prisoner's father, shewing a balance due to Harries, amounting to 497. 38. 4d. This balance the prosecutor, Harries, pressed the prisoner to pay, and the prisoner said that if the prosecutor and David Williams would come to his father's house on the 29th of July, and bring a stamped receipt with them, he would settle. with them; they accordingly went, David Williams having previously purchased a two and sixpenny receipt stamp with a half-crown given him by Harries. This stamp Williams took with him in his pocket to the house of the prisoner's father, when he went thither with Harries, on the 29th of July; and, on their arrival at the house of the prisoner's father, they found the prisoner sitting at a desk with papers before him, and his father sitting in another part of the same room. The prisoner, addressing Harries and Williams, said, "By this account there appears to be still due to you a balance of 491. 3s. 4d., beyond the £125 which you have had. Have you brought a stamped receipt?" Williams replied that he had, and taking the blank stamp out of his pocket handed it to the prisoner. The prisoner then aid, "You have not written it." Williams said that he hat not, and asked the prisoner to write it. The prisoner then wrote on the stamp, and read it aloud as a receipt for 1741. 2. 4d.; namely, for £125 previously paid, and 491. 3s. 4d., the balance. The prisoner did not give the stamp back to either Harries or Williams, but asked Har ries to come to the desk and put his name to it, which he did, without removing it from the desk. The prisoner then asked Williams to witness it, which he did, by signing his name on the stamp, the prisoner keeping one of his fingers on it all the time. The prisoner then took up the stamp, and asked his father if he had brought down his cheque-book? The prisoner's father replied that he had not; and the prisoner replied, "Why have you not?" and went out of the room, both Harries and Williams believing that he was going for the cheque-book; but he came back in about two minutes, returned to his desk, and took up his papers, and after saying that the masons' charges were very exorbitant, and that they had already been overpaid, and that the matter was now all settled, he went out of the room, leaving his father, Harries, and Williams there. Neither Harries nor Williams ever demanded the return of the receipt, either from the prisoner or his father, but they both went away in about five minutes after the prisoner had left the room, threatening to make the prisoner suffer for what he had done. It was proved by Harries and Williams, that the one would not have signed, nor would the other have witnessed the receipt, had they not expected. to have immediately received a cheque for the balance, 497. 38. 4d. E. V. Williams and Nicholl Carne, for the prisoner, submitted, that, on these facts, there was no case of larceny to go to the jury. Benson, for the prosecution, relied on the case of Regina v. Rodway (a). (a) 9 C. & P. 784. In that case, on an indictment for larceny, it appeared that a landlord went to his tenant, who had removed all his goods, to demand rent amounting to 127. 10s., VOL. II. E taking with him a receipt ready N. P. 1846. REGINA v. FRAMPTON. 1846. REGINA v. FRAMPTON. WIGHTMAN, J.-I think that this case is distinguishable from that of Regina v. Rodway. There, when the landlord handed the receipt to the tenant, it was complete, and nothing remained to be done but to pay the money. Here the receipt stamp was given by the creditor to the debtor for a special purpose, namely, to prepare the receipt; and it never was in the prosecutor's possession after the receipt was in a complete state. In the case of Regina v. Rodway, there does not appear to have been any one present but the parties. Here the thing was done publicly, and in the presence of an attesting witness; who, by proving that no money actually passed, could render the receipt of no value to any one. The prisoner must be acquitted. Verdict-Not guilty. Benson, for the prosecution. E. V.Williams and Nicholl Carne, for the prisoner. [Attornies-Attwood, and B. Jones.] the rent. It was proved by the land- bank notes, and, upon the prosecuter laying down some bank notes for the purpose of having them changed for gold, the prisoner took them up, and went away with them, promising to return immediately with the gold: the prisoner did not return, and the prosecutor never saw him again till he was apprehended: Baron Wood held," that the case clearly did amount to larceny, if the jury believed the intention of the prisoner was to run away with the notes, and never to return with the gold; and whether the prisoner had at the time the animus furandi, was the sole point upon which the question turned." |