Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

REG.

THRISTLE.

Larceny.

It appeared in evidence, that the prosecutor, in 1848, met the prisoner, who was a watchmaker at Malvern. The prosecutor asked prisoner if he was going as far as prosecutor's house; the prisoner said “yes," if the prosecutor had anything for him. The prosecutor said his watch wanted regulating, if prisoner would call.

The prisoner went to the prosecutor's house, and after examin. ing the watch, told the prosecutor's wife that he could do nothing with it there, but must take it to his own house. The prisoner then took it, and on his way home he met the prosecutor, to whom he mentioned that he was taking the watch to his own house, and would return it in two or three days. Prosecutor made no objection.

In a few weeks after, prisoner left the neighbourhood without returning prosecutor's watch, and it was not afterwards heard of. The prisoner, on being taken into custody, said, “I have disposed of the property, and it is impossible to get it back.”

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but the chairman being of opinion that there was no evidence of a felonious taking, when the prisoner first took the watch from the prosecutor's house, with the knowledge and in the presence of the prosecutor's wife, and entertaining doubt whether the prisoner's subsequent appropriation of the watch could, under the circumstances above detailed, constitute larceny, requests the opinion of this court as to the correctness of the conviction in point of law.

Case.

SECOND CASE.

keynolds. It ap Malvern, receixatch to repai

The same prisoner was also indicted at the same sessions, for stealing one watch, the property of the prosecutor, Thomas Reynolds. It appeared in evidence, that the prisoner, who was a watchmaker at Malvern, received from the prosecutor some time in January, 1848, his silver watch to repair. The prisoner returned it to the prosecutor. A few days after the prisoner had so returned it, the prosecutor told the prisoner that the watch gained. The prisoner said, that if the prosecutor would let him have it again, he would regulate it, and return it in a day or two. The prosecutor thereupon gave the watch to the prisoner, who, in eight or nine days, left Malvern with the prosecutor's watch in his pos. session, and was not again heard of until he was arrested on the present charge some time afterwards.

The prosecutor was unable to say whether he had paid for the repairs of his watch or not, but stated that the prisoner, when he left Malvern, had other repairs of the prosecutor's on hand and unfinished.

The prisoner, when taken into custody, said, “I have disposed of the property, and it is impossible to get it back.”

The jury found a verdict of guilty, but the chairman being of opinion that there was no evidence of a felonious taking on the part of the prisoner, when he received the watch from the prosecutor

TARISTLE.

to regulate it, and entertaining a doubt whether the subsequent REG. departure of the prisoner from Malvern with the prosecutor's watch in his possession, could, under the circumstances above detailed, constitute larceny, requests the opinion of this court, as Larceny. in the former case.

[See 2 Russ. on Crimes (last ed.), p. 56; where it is said, where it appears that the delivery of the goods by the owner or person authorized to dispose of them was not obtained fraudulently and with intent to steal, a remaining inquiry may be, whether such lawful possession has been determined, and whether there has been any new and felonious taking. Thus it has been held, that if a carrier take a pack of goods to the place appointed, and deliver or lay it down, his possession is determined, and if he afterwards carry it away with intent to steal it, this will be a new taking and felonious :" (3 Inst. 107; 1 Hale, 505.) If the lawful possession has not been determined, the goods will continue in the Case. possession of the party to whom they were delivered by bailment, and the general principle of law will prevail, “that if a person obtain the goods of another without fraud, although he have the animus furandi afterwards and convert them to his own use, he cannot be guilty of felony :" (3 Inst. 107; 2 East. P. C. c. 16, s. 113.) A principle which has been holden to extend to the cases of a tailor, who has cloth delivered to him to make clothes with ; a carrier who receives goods to carry to a certain place; and a friend, who is entrusted with goods to keep for the use of the owner; which they afterwards severally embezzle : (Staundf. P. C. c. 25; 1 Hale, 504, 505; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 33, 8. 2.) And so, if a watch be delivered to a person to mend, and he sells it, this has been held not to be larceny: (R. V. Levy, 4 Car. & P. 241.) And so, also, if plate be delivered to a gold. smith to work or to weigh, or as a deposit, it has been held, that his conversion of it will not be a felony: (3 Hen. 7, pl. 13, cited 1 Show, 52; 2 East. P. C. c. 16, s. 113.) It has, however, been already noticed, that some of the cases of this nature seem to make a near approach to those where a bare charge or mere special use of the goods is transferred by the delivery, and where consequently the legal possession of them remaining exclusively in the owner, larceny may be committed in respect of them, exactly as if no delivery at all had been made :” (see also R. v. Thurborn, 1 Den. C. C. 387; S. C. nom. R. v. Wood, 3 Cox's Crim. Cas. 453; R. v. Stear, 1 Den. C. C. 349; 3 Cox's Crim. Cas. 187.)]

These cases were not argued by counsel, but were considered by the following Judges.-Pollock, C. B.; Patteson, J.; Wightman, J.; Platt, B.; and Talfourd, J.

POLLOCK, C. B., delivered the judgment of the court. - The Judgment. indictment was for stealing a watch ; and the circumstances set out in the case do not, on the question of fact, justify the verdict of guilty ; but in giving our judgment that the conviction is wrong, we do not proceed merely upon the facts stated. The

REG.

THRISTLE.

Larceny.

question put to us in the conclusion of the case seems to be this :—The chairman doubted whether a subsequent appropriation could make the entire transaction a larceny, there not having been at the time of the taking any animus furandi; and I think we are bound to take it that he directed the jury that the subsequent appropriation might render the transaction larceny, though there was not any intention to steal at the time of the taking ; and, indeed, the chairman's opinion seems to have been, that there was not the animus furandi at the time of the taking; and the question is, whether he was right in his direction. We think not, for unless there was a taking animo furandi, no dishonest appropriation afterwards could make it larceny.

Conviction reversed.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL.

REG. v. JOHN Boulton.(a)

November 20, 1849.

False pretences--Obtaining a railway ticket.
A railway ticket entitling a passenger to travel upon a railway to a certain

place, without any further charge, is a chattel of value, within the meaning
of 7 § 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 53 ; and a person obtaining such a ticket by
false pretences from a servant of the railway company is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
THE prisoner was convicted before Wightman, J., at York,
1 when the following case was reserved by the learned judge:-

The prisoner was convicted at the Yorkshire Summer Assizes, 1849, before me upon the sixth count of an indictment, charging him with obtaining by false pretences from a servant of the Yorkshire and Lancashire Railway Company, a railway ticket of the company for a journey from Bradford to Huddersfield by one of their trains.

The count was as follows:

And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said John Boulton afterwards, to wit, on the 11th day of April, in the year aforesaid, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly, did falsely pretend to one Charles Turner, he the said Charles Turner being then and there a servant of the said Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company that a certain ticket which he the said John Boulton then and there delivered to the

Case,

[ocr errors][merged small]

REG.

[ocr errors]

BOULTON.

retences

said Charles Turner was then and there a genuine ticket of the said company, before then obtained by him the said John Boulton Be from the said company, for the conveyance of him the said John Boulton as a passenger, in and by certain carriages of the said False company, from the said town of Bradford to Huddersfield afore- pre

Railway said, on the said 11th day of April, by means of which last

ticket, mentioned false pretences, the said John Boulton did then and there unlawfully obtain from the said Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, a certain chattel, to wit, a printed ticket of the said company, authorizing the bearer thereof to be thereafter conveyed without further charge or payment in that behalf, by certain carriages of the said company, on the said 11th day of April, from the said town of Bradford to Huddersfield aforesaid, the said last-mentioned ticket being then and there the goods and chattels of the said Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and of the value of, &c., with intent thereby then and there to cheat and defraud the said Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company of the same. Whereas, in truth and in fact, the said ticket so delivered as last aforesaid, by the said John Boulton, was not a genuine ticket of or obtained from the said company for the conveyance of any person as a passenger by any carriage of the said company, or any journey whatsoever, to the great damage and deception of the said company, to the evil example of all others in the like case offending, and against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and Case. against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. The ticket of the company is in the annexed form :

[blocks in formation]

And is a voucher for the journey without further payment, but is to be given up to the company at the journey's end.

The prisoner was stopped upon the line before he finished his journey, and was taken into custody with the ticket in his possession.

The question upon which I desire the opinion of the judges, is whether the obtaining such a ticket was obtaining a chattel of the company with intent to defraud the company of the same, within the meaning of the act of Parliament.

The case was not argued by counsel, but was considered by the following learned judges :-Pollock, C.B. ; Patteson, J.; Wightman, J.; Platt, B.; and Talfourd, J.

REG.

BOULTON.

False pretences Railway ticket.

POLLOCK, C.B., delivered the judgment of the court.—This was a conviction for obtaining a railway ticket by means of false pretences; and we think that it is within the statute which makes it penal to obtain “a chattel” by false pretences. The ticket which entitled the bearer to travel without further payment was something of value, and the obtaining of it by false pretences from a servant of the company was, in our opinion, an obtaining of a valuable chattel with intent to defraud the company. Although at the end of the journey it was to be returned according to the ordinary mode of managing the affairs of the company, that does not prevent it, whilst it is out and confers the privilege of travelling gratis, from being an article of value, obtained by the false pretences generally alleged in the indictment, and particularly proved at the trial.

Conviction affirmed.

from a sable chatte! withey it was to ips of the compar privilege the

Judgment.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

JUNE SESSION.

June 11, 1849.

(Before the RECORDER.)
REG. v. WOLF, PRIDMORE, and Otley.(a)
Indictment for keeping a disorderly house, under 25 Geo. 2, c. 36.
A room within twenty miles of the cities of London and Westminster, used

for the purpose of music and dancing, and to which the public are
admitted on payment of money, is a disorderly house within the 25 Geo. 2,
c. 36, s. 2, unless it has been duly licensed, although no improper or dis-

orderly conduct is allowed in the said room. The onus lies upon the defendant of proving that he has a licence. One

of the defendants had his name over the house as a free vintner, and another had contracted to supply the visitors with refreshments, but neither took any acting part in the management, although they were

sometimes seen in the room.
Held, that they were not shown to be persons having the management within

the 8th section.
THE indictment charged the defendants that they, “on the 10th

1 day of January, in the year of our Lord 1848, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of taking this inquisition, with force and arms, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, and within twenty miles of the cities of London and Westminster, unlawfully did maintain and keep a certain room and place for public music and dancing, situate in the parish of St.

• Indictment.

(a) Reported by B. C. Robinson, Esq., Barrister-at-Law,

« ForrigeFortsett »