Page images
PDF
EPUB

process, or progress of manufacture (a), in any building, field, or other place, every such offender, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to any of the punishments which the Court may award as herein before last mentioned;" viz. in sect. 14; the punishment imposed by which section is now altered by the 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 90, ss. 2 and 3, and as to which see ante, p. 1144.

Neither the above 16th nor 14th sect. of the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, in express terms enacts whether this offence is to be deemed a felony or a misdemeanour. It should seem it is a felony.

In an indictment on the now repealed act, 18 Geo. II. c. 27, for stealing calico placed to be printed, &c. in a building made use of by a calico printer for printing, drying, &c. it was held, that, in order to support the capital charge, it was necessary to prove that the building from which the calico was stolen was made use of either for printing or drying calico. (R. v. Dixon, R. & R. 53). It was also held, on the now repealed acts, that, if it appear on the trial that the yarn stolen had been taken up and thrown into heaps before it was carried into the house at the time it was stolen, it was not within the protection of the statutes, and the prisoner could only be convicted of simple larceny. (4 Bla. Com. 240, in notis; R. v. Hugill, 3 Russ. 245, S. C.)

It will be seen that the repealed statute mentioned particularly a building, &c., made use of by any calico printer, &c., for printing, whitening, booking, bleaching, or dyeing.

(f). Larceny on board Vessels, &c. in Canals or Rivers.

By stat. 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 17, "If any person shall steal any goods or merchandize in any vessel, barge, or boat of any description whatsoever, in any port of entry or discharge, or upon any navigable river or canal, or in any creek belonging to or communicating with any such port, river, or canal, or shall steal any goods or merchandize from any dock, wharf, or quay adjacent to any such port, river, canal, or creek, every such offender, being convicted thereof, shall be liable to any of the punishments which the Court may award as hereinbefore last mentioned;" viz. sect. 14; the punishment imposed by which section is now altered by the 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 90, ss. 2 and 3; as to which, see ante, 1144.

As to the punishment for plundering or stealing any part of a ship or vessel in distress, or wrecked, &c., under the 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 87, see tit. "Wreck," Vol. VI.

It would not be sufficient, in an indictment for stealing goods from any vessel, on a certain navigable river, to prove in evidence that the vessel was aground in a dock, in a creek of the river. (R. v. Pike, 1 Leach, 417).

The words of the statute are " in any vessel," &c.; and it is therefore immaterial whether the defendant succeeded in taking the goods from the ship or not, if there was a sufficient asportation in the ship to constitute larceny. A man cannot be guilty of this offence in his own ship. (R. v. Madox, R. & R. 92).

The construction on the 22 Geo. II. c. 45, was generally confined to such goods and merchandizes as are usually lodged in ships, or on wharfs or quays. And, therefore, where George Grimes was indicted on this statute for stealing a considerable sum of money out of a ship in port; though great part of it consisted in Portugal money, not made current by proclamation, but commonly current; it was ruled not to be within the statute. (R. v. Grimes, Fost. 79. And see R. v. Leigh, 1 Leach,

(a) See R. v. Woodhead, 1 M. & R. 549, as to the state or condition in which goods may be in to come under this description.

6. As regards stealing from certain places.

Stealing on board vessels, &c, in

canals or rivers.

[ocr errors]

3. Indictment 52; 2 East's P. C. 647). The same rule would apply to the present for. statute.

Wrecks.

The property should be such as is usually deposited in ships cr wharfs, and not attached to the person; for the same principle which governs the stealing in houses is equally applicable to places which this statute protects. (Id., ante, 1142, 1143).

The luggage of a passenger going by a steam boat is within the meaning of the act, as being "goods or merchandize." (R. v. Wright, 7 C. & P. 159).

As to the trial of felonies committed on navigations and on stage coaches, &c., see ante, tit. “Indictment,” p. 874.

(g). Larceny from Wrecks.

As to this, see tit. “Wreck,” Vol. VI.

Indictment for
larceny.

Venue.

Name and addi-
tion of defendant.

Property stolen.

III. Endictment for Larceny.

In the first place, it should be observed, that, in framing an ind ment for larceny at common law, or on a particular statute, the general rules, as laid down, ante, tit. "Indictment," will be applicable, and should be accordingly observed.

All that will be here noticed will be the particular requisites in the formation of indictments for larceny in general; those for larca ast tended by statute, or embezzlement, having been already noticed.

Venue.]-The property in the goods stolen always remaining in the true owner, unaltered by the tortious caption, every asportation is in law a new trespass. Therefore, the venue may be laid in any county into which they are conveyed, as the offence of taking and converting is there in itself complete; (1 Hale, 507-8; 1 Hawk. c. 33, s. 52; 1Chat. C. L. 944); and this, though the goods were not carried into the county in which the venue is laid until long after the original taking. (R. V. R. & M. 45). But this, it is said, will not be the case when the original taking is such that the common law will not take cognizance of it, as if goods are taken on the high seas. (1 Hawk. c. 33, s. 52; 1(hit. C. L. 178).

As to stealing goods in Scotland, and bringing them into an English county, see 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 76, ante, 875, 1119.

The law and recent enactments as to the venue, in indictments in neral, and which will be here applicable, will be found ante, 871 to 878.

Name and Addition of Defendant.]—As to this, see ante, p. 879 to 864

Time of committing Offence.]-As to this, see ante, 889.

Property stolen.]-The same rules, as laid down, ante, 894, with respect to the statement of the property stolen, will here apply.

The goods must be described with sufficient certainty, and proved substantially as laid, (i. e. the species), in order that it may appear upon the face of the indictment, that the thing taken is such whereof larceny may be committed; (2 East's P. C. 777); and also that the Court may see what judgment to pass on the whole of the indictment. It will not suffice to state the property as "goods and chattels " only, without more particular description-as, one horse," " "“one cow," &c. (2 Hal, 182, post, 1149).

66

If a defendant be indicted for stealing a sheep, and it appear to be a lamb, it is said he must be acquitted. (4 Bla. Com. 240; Chitty's ed.

for.

es; 2 Hale, 182-3, acc.
M. & Sel. 552, contrà).
is a heifer, will be bad.
ictments on statutes).
f an animal has the same appellation, whether it be alive or dead,
it makes no difference as to the charge, whether it were alive or
d, it may be called, when dead, by the appellation applicable to it
en alive. (R. v. Puckering, R. & M. 242). But if its being alive
lead make any difference in the charge, as regards the punishment or
erwise, then it should be described accordingly. Describing it gene-
y would mean, that it was alive. (See R. v. Edwards, R. & R.
; R. v. Williams, R. & M. 110; R. v. Holloway, 1 C. & P. 128; 2
t's P. C.777).

And see R. v. Loom, R. & M. 160. Sed vide, 3. Indictment
So, an indictment for stealing a cow, describing
(2 East's P. C. 616. See ante, 891, as to

n indictment for stealing money should specify the pieces of which money consisted; saying 107. in monies numbered is not sufficient. v. Fry, R. & R. 482. See ante, 895).

66

the indictment be for stealing bank notes, it will not suffice to dee them as so many pounds merely, to which the bank notes amount1 value; (R. v. Furneaux, R. & R. 335; R. v. Tyer, R. & R. 403). it will suffice to describe them as "divers, to wit, nine bank notes, he payment of divers sums of money, amounting in the whole to a in sum of money, to wit, the sum of nine pounds, and of the value e pounds," without even stating the value of any individual note; (2 , 1103). And, it seems, it would suffice to describe them as "bank generally; (R. v. Johnson, 3 M. & Sel. 547); or they may be ibed as "promissory notes called bank notes," or promissory called bank post bills," according to the fact; (1 Leach, 253, 513); escribing a bank note as "a certain note commonly called a bank ' is not sufficient. (R. v. Craven, 2 East's P. C. 601; R. & R. 14, sed vide R. v. Johnson, 3 M. & Sel. 547). So, if the thing stolen scribed as a bank post bill, and be not set out, the Court cannot udicial notice that it is a promissory note, or that it is such an inent as, under the statute 2 Geo. II. c. 25, (now repealed), may be bject of larceny, though it be described as made for the payment ney. (R. v. Chard, R. & R. 488).

[ocr errors]

ore the late act, it was necessary, in all cases of embezzlement by or servants, to state specifically in the indictment some article zled. (R. v. Furneaux, R. & R. 385; R. v. Flower, 8 D. & R. R. v. Tyers, R. & R. 402). But now, except where the offence reo a chattel, (which must be described as in an indictment for lar, it is sufficient to allege the embezzlement to be of money, withecifying any particular coin or valuable security. (7&8 Geo. IV. s. 48, ante, 1121).

on an indictment for stealing printed books, it is not necessary to re than name so many printed books; (R. v. Johnson, 3 M. & Sel. So, in an indictment for stealing a handkerchief, it is not neces> describe it as a handkerchief of any specific make or materials, t it is of silk, linen, or any other particular quality. (R. v. JohnM. & Sel. 552).

the goods may be called by the name they are known in the Several goods ; as, a set of new handkerchiefs in a piece was held rightly de- mixed, &c. 1 as so many handkerchiefs, though they were not separated one another, the pattern, however, designating each, and they were bed in the trade as so many handkerchiefs. (R. v. Nibbs, R. & ).

in R. v. Kettle, per Bayley, J., at Chelmsford, 11th March, 1819, the prisoner was indicted for stealing "one bushel of oats, one I of chaff, and one bushel of beans, of the goods and chattels of A. en and there found," and the proof was, that these articles, at the of the felonious taking, were mixed together, Bayley, J., held, that ticles ought to have been described as mixed; thus, a certain

[ocr errors]

3. Indictment for.

Numler.

Takings at different times,

Value.

Belonging to

owner.

Name of prosecu. tor and owner.

mixture, consisting of one bushel, &c.;" and he directed an acquittale this count. (3 Chit. C. L. 947, a). So, ingots of tin, or a bar of iron, my be described as so many pounds weight of tin or iron; but where in article has obtained, in common parlance, a name of its own, it wal be wrong to describe it by the name of the material of which it is anposed. (Reg. v. Mansfield, 1 C. & M. 140).

The quantity or number of the things stolen must be stated w certainty requisite in indictments in general; and another reas íz such certainty in this respect is, that the prosecutor cannot clai tution of any other goods than those stated on the record. (2 HE. An indictment for stealing twenty sheep and ewes is bad, becase de number of each sort is not stated; (2 Hale's P. C. 182); so it is bait say that the defendant feloniously stole divers sheep or doves, w expressing their number. (Id. 183).

It is not necessary to prove in evidence the whole number or qua stated, in cases where different articles are mentioned; for proof that the prisoner stole the coat, or the waistcoat, or the shoes, would be suffered In an indictment for embezzling a letter, stating it contained seves notes, it will suffice though one note only be proved; (R. v. Elm, & R. 188). And, on an indictment for embezzling one pound and other monies, &c., describing them, though the evidence be other property than that described was embezzled, yet, if it be pod that one pound notes were embezzled, it will suffice. (R. v. Cera & R. 303. And see R. v. Johnson, 3 M. & Sel. 548; 3 Cha, VL 946, &c.)

Where several articles are mentioned in the indictment, the p must prove that they were all taken at the same time, or al times so near to each other as to form parts of one continuizStion; otherwise the Court will put the prosecutor to elect for vÀ UT of larceny he will prosecute, and will oblige him to confine his can to that. (R. v. Smith, Ry. & M. 295. See R. v. Ellis, 6 D. & R. TA; 6 B. & C. 145, S. C.) But the Court will not thus put the prac to his election, merely because the goods might have been, and pray were, stolen at different times, if, from anything appearing in the be not impossible that they might all have been stolen at one time & v. Dunn, R. & M. 146).

The value of the goods ought to be added; though it would t necessary, where several articles of the same kind are stolen, te the value of each separate article. (2 Stark. Cr. Pl. 451. See v. Peel, R. & R. 407 ; R. v. ——, R. & R. 274). It is not necessary prove the precise value as stated. (Ante, 896). So long as the s tion between grand and petit larceny existed, it was necessary, a to convict the defendant of the former offence, to prove that the or some of them stolen at the same time exceeded the valued. but this distinction is now abolished, and every simple larey ever be the value of the property, is now of the same nature and to the same incidents as grand larceny was formerly. (7&87. c. 29, s. 2, ante, p. 1113).

Although, to make a thing the subject of larceny, it must be da value, and stated to be so in the indictment, yet it need not value of some coin known to the law, that is to say, of a farthin a de least. (Reg. v. Morris, 9 C. & P. 349).

Where the property is of a nature to warrant that descriptor should, in addition to the statement of its quality and kind, b "the goods and chattels" of the owner, or words of similar (Long's Case, Cro. Eliz. 490). On the same principle, it should be averred "of the monies,' "" of the cattle," &c., when these terms apply (3 Chit. C. L. 948; 1 Leach, 468).

Name of Prosecutor and Owner.]-The name of the owner of the g

[ocr errors]

when known, must be stated. (1 Hale, 512; 2 Leach, 578. See, in 3. Indictment general, ante, tit. "Indictment," 884 to 889).

for. Any one who has a special property in goods stolen may lay them to Special property be his in an indictment for larceny; as, a bailee, pawnee, lessee for or possession. years, carrier, or the like; à fortiori, they may be laid to be the proerty of the respective owners; and the indictment is good either way. 2 East's P. C. 652; R. v. Remnant, R. & R. 136. See ante, 1095, 1096). A servant was sent out by his master to receive money from his naster's customers, and having received the money, he was robbed of it n his way home: Semble that an indictment for this robbery, in which he money was laid to be the property of his master, could not be suported, as the money had never been in the possession of the master. Reg. v. Rudick, 8 Č. & P. 237 ; per Alderson, B.)

A knife was stolen from the pocket of A. as his dead body lay in a oad at S., in the diocese of W. The last place of abode of A. was at ', in the diocese of G.; but A.'s father stated that he believed his son ad left T. to come to live with him, but did not know whether his son ad given up his lodgings at T. Held, that this was sufficient proof to pport a count for larceny, laying the property in the Lord Bishop of V. (Reg. v. Tippin, 1 C. & M. 545; per Patteson, J.)

If a father buy and pay for cloth which is made into trousers for his on, who is seventeen years of age, these trousers may, on an indictment or larceny, be laid as the property of the father. (Reg. v. Hughes, 1 C. & 1.593, Patteson).

In such cases the property may be laid either in the father or the son, at the better course is to lay it in the latter. (Ib.)

Goods belonging to a guest, stolen at an inn, may be laid to be the roperty either of the innkeeper or the guest. (Jane Todd's case, Old Bailey, July, 1711).

So, goods stolen from a washerwoman who takes in the linen of other ersons to wash may be laid to be her goods. (Packer's case, Old Bailey, April, 1714).

So, cattle stolen from an agister may be laid as his cattle. (R. v. Woodard, 2 East's P. C. 653).

So, goods stolen from a stage-coachman, having the possession, charge, nd carriage of the same, may be laid as his goods. (R. v. Deakin, 2 Leach, 875; 2 East's P. C. 653, S. C.)

The property of the goods of a ready-furnished lodging must be laid a the lodger, and not in the landlord. (R. v. Belstead, R. & R. C. C. 11, and R. v. Brunswick, R. & M. 26). But if a larceny be committed y the lodger, then the goods may be described as the property of the wner or person letting to hire. (7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 45, ante, 120).

A box belonging to a benefit society was stolen from a room in a ublic house. Two of the stewards had keys of this box, and by the ules of the society the landlord ought to have had a key, but in fact e had not. Park, J., held, that the prisoner might be convicted on 1 count laying the property in the landlord alone. (R. v. Wymer, 4 C. & P. 391).

Goods seized under a writ of fi. fa. may be described as the property of the party against whom the writ issued; for, though they are in custodia legis, the original owner continues to have a property in them, until they are sold. (R. v. Eastall, 2 Russ. 158).

Clothes or other necessaries furnished by a father to his child may, it seems, be laid to be the property either of the father or of the child, particularly if the child be of tender age; (R. v. Hayne, 12 Co. 113; 2 East's P. C. 654); but it is safer, perhaps, to allege it to be the property of the child. (See R. v. Forsgate, 1 Leach, 463, 464, n.)

So, where A. had taken a house, in which B., his relation, carried on a trade for the benefit of A. and his family, having himself neither a share

« PreviousContinue »