« ForrigeFortsett »
Right of prisoner to examine juror on the
BY FINDING. voire dire, 509, 517 Right of prisoner to have the jury panel read
Where lost property is found, the appropriation
of it by the finder is not larceny, unless he over, 517
knew, or had reasonable means of ascertainChallenge of, 517
ing, the owner.
Quære, whether, in the case of a bank JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
note, the finder can be indicted for felony on
the proof that, though he did not know the Jurisdiction of, 53
owner when he found the note, he did know him before he put it off ? Reg. v. Wood,
If a man finds goods which have been actually LARCENY.
lost, or which he reasonably supposes to have
been lost, and takes possession of them, inIn an indictment for stealing five pints of por tending to appropriate them entirely to his
ter, it appeared that the prisoner was dis own use, and there are no circumstances to covered standing by a barrel of porter, out rebut the presumption that he believed the of a hole in which the porter was running owner could not be found, he is not guilty into a can on the ground, and that about of larceny, even though he disposes of them five pints had run into the can.
after he has notice of the title of the real Held, that there was a sufficient asportavit owner, for the original taking is lawful, and proved of the porter in the can. Reg. v. the subsequent conversion is not a trespass. Wallis, 67
If, on the other hand, there is a reasonable
evidence of his belief, at the time of taking EVIDENCE-BAILMENT.
them, that the owner could be found, then
the original taking is felonious. Reg. v. A. the bailee of B.'s mare, took her to a cer Wood, 453
tain livery stable in the town of P. where B. was, paid to B, the balance of money due to him after deducting one pound due for the
RECEIVING-HUSBAND AND WIFE. keep of the mare, and told B. that she was Where a wife was indicted with her husband at the livery-stables. B. sent word to the for receiving stolen property, and the evistable-keeper not to let A. have the mare dence was, that, although not present when again ; and on A. asking to be allowed to her husband received the property, she had ride the mare to a certain place, twice told subsequently dealt with it, and ultimately him never to put finger near her more, to
destroyed it. which A, said, “ Well.” After B. had left Held, that it was a question for the jury the town, A. obtained the mare from the whether, in receiving it and taking an active ostler at the livery-stables by a false story, || part in dealing with it afterwards, she did so and never returned her.
with the purpose of aiding her husband in Held, that there was evidence to go to the the object he had in view of turning it to jury that a change of possession of the mare profit; or whether what she did was merely had taken place after she had been left at for the purpose of concealing her husband's the stables, and that the stable-keeper had guilt, or screening him from the consequences. become B.'s agent. Reg. v. Steer, 187
In the first place she might be found guilty ;
Reg. v. M'Clarens and others, 425
An indictment containing counts for stealing
as well as receiving, under sect. 3 of 11 & 12 what purported to be an inventory of goods pawned at different times. The inventory
Vict. c. 46, may have as many counts for was not in the prisoner's handwriting ; but
receiving as for stealing; and the prosecutor
is not bound to elect upon which of the on the outside of the paper the prisoner's name, and the word “private,” both in his
counts for receiving he will rely. Reg. v. handwriting, were indorsed.
Beeton, 451 Held, that the contents of the paper were An indictment charged a larceny of “two pieces not admissible in evidence against him. of the current silver coin of the realm called Reg. v. Hare and another, 547
| shillings, of the goods and chattels of A. B."
Held, that, though “ goods and chattels "I The prisoner being a watchmaker received was an incorrect description of money, those a watch from the prosecutor to be repaired, words might be rejected as surplusage, and not then intending to steal it. But in a few that then there was a sufficient allegation that days he went away, taking the watch with the money belonged to A. B. Reg. v. him; and when taken into custody he said, Radley, 460
“I have disposed of the property and it is impossible to get it back :"
Held, that there was no evidence of a PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSARY.
larceny. Reg. v. Thristle, 573 If A. unlocks a door of a roon of which he has the key, in order to allow B. to commit a
A. employed B., a drover by trade, to take larceny in it, and A, then goes away, and B.,
pigs to C., and to bring back such sunn as in his absence, enters the room, and removes
C. should give him, on being shown a paper articles out of it, A. is not a principal in the
given to B. for that purpose. B. had no larceny. Reg. v. Jeffries and another, 85
authority to do anything but deliver the pigs to C. B. took them to the house of C. at an hour in the morning when the inmates
were in bed. C. himself was not at home; BY SERVANT.
and the persons who spoke to B. from the A servant entrusted with the care of his mas window of the house gave him no instruc
ter's property, and who subsequently appro tions. B. then sold the pigs to another perpriates it to his own use, is guilty of larceny son and absconded with the price. He had at the time he so disposes of it, and not at received 21. from A. for expenses, for which any previous time he may have intended to he was to account; and by custom he steal it, the principle of animus furandi not was entitled to receive a sum per day for the applying to the relation of master and ser- time occupied, and also to drive cattle for vant. Reg. v. Roberts and another, 74
any other person at the same time.
Held (dissentiente Lord Denman, C. J.), A person employed in a tannery got clandestine that these facts did not prove B. to be a access to a warehouse, which was part of the
mere servant of A. ; and that, therefore, he tannery, and in which dressed skins were
had been improperly convicted upon an inkept, and took from it certain skins dressed
dictment which charged a larceny of the by other workmen. They were afterwards
pigs. If he was a bailee, he could not be seen and recognized at the porch or place in
guilty of larceny, unless he intended, at the which he worked, and he was indicted for time of the receipt of it, to appropriate the the larceny of them. The jury found that
property to his own use; and there was no he had not intended to remove the skins
evidence of any such intention. from the tannery and dispose of them else
The case of Barnard v. Macnamee (1 Moo. where, but that his intention in taking them
C. C. 368), questioned. Reg. v. Hey, 582. was, to deliver them to the foreman and to get paid for them as if they were his own Special verdict in, 181 work, and that in this way he intended the By stealing and secreting letters, 271 skins to be restored to the possession of his master.
Indictment for, 447 Held, that he was not guilty of larceny. For stealing a ham, 572 Reg. v. Holloway, 241
Act for amendment of law of, App. lv. The servant of a tallow chandler removed fat belonging to his master from the room in
LETTERS. which it was kept, to a room where his master was accustomed to buy fat from per- Indictment for stealing and secreting, 271 sons who had it to sell, and placed it on a pair of scales there, with intent to sell it to his master, and appropriate the proceeds to
LIBEL. his own use. Held to be a larceny in the servant. Reg.
nt. Ben Form of indictment for, with a plea of justifiv. Hull, 245
cation under Lord Campbell's Act, App.
Xxxviii. If at the time of the taking of a chattel there is
no animus furandi, a subsequent fraudulent appropriation of it will not make the entire transaction larceny.
MALICIOUS INJURIES. Wherever death ensucs from injuries inflicted
by parties engaged in any illegal act, an in-
dictment for manslaughter will lie, even
to be sized, to fit it for being used in manu terially contributed to his death by his own
False STATEMENTS IN.
On an indictment under the 41st section of
the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86, the indictment
alleged that a certain clergyman had duly
solemnized a marriage between the defen-
dant and another person, and that he was
about to register in duplicate, in certain mar-
riage register books, furnished to him fur
that purpose by the Registrar-General,
several particulars required to be known, re-
lating to such marriage, and that the defeu-
dant wilfully made to the said clergymnan for
the purpose of being inserted in the sail
marriage register books, certain false state-
ments, touching the particulars relating to
the said marriage. The evidence showed
that the entry had been made before the
marriage, by the parish clerk, who put the
questions to the defendant, and wrote down
the answers in the absence of the clergyman,
but that after the marriage ceremony was
performed, the clergyman read over the
whole entry to the defendant, and asked him
if it was correct, to which he answered in the
Held, that the evidence was sufficient to
support the indictment.
Held, also, not necessary to prove that
the marriage register books had been fur-
nished to the clergyman by the Registrar-
General. Reg. v. Brown, 127
What is, in perjury, 36
MERCHANT SEAMAN'S ACT.
5th : That a count which charged both a Indictment for mutiny under, 423
harges that Misdemeanor not merged in felony, 229
necessary to prove the misdemeanor also
shows that it is part of a felony, and that I
suance of In an indictment for murder, the 1st count
certain infant female child, born of the body
of her the said Sarah Waters, of tender age,
to wit, of about the age of two days, did
make an assault," &c., and went on to state
a murder by poisoning.
The 2nd count charged an assault, "in
and upon the said infant female child, so
born of the body of her the said Sarah
Waters," &c., and then set forth the cause
of death to have been the exposing the child
on a heap of ashes, leaving it there exposed to
the inclemency of the weather. But there
was no allegation in this count of the child's
age, or that it was of tender years, so that
the natural consequence of the exposure
would be its death.
Held, nevertheless, that the 2nd count
was good after verdict.
Held, also, that describing the child in
the indictment as "not named," was not
matter of objection. Reg. v. Waters, 300
then in the possession of a police officer. The
application was granted, and an order made
that the inspection should take place in the
therefore where an indictment contained medical persons who had examined it on the
Statement of name of murdered party in in-
was good. Ryalls v. The Queen, 254
MERCHANT SEAMAN'S Act.
agreement having been entered into between
them as is rendered necessary by the 7 & 8
Vict. c. 112, s. 2, is not a seaman or a ma-
riner within the 11 & 12 Will. 3, c. 7, s. 9,
for making a revolt, by deserting his vessel
in port, and inducing the rest of the crew to
do the same.
Semble, a merchant vessel is a ship within the event of their being interrupted by
Turner and others, 304
Evidence of, 50
NOLLE PROSEQUI, 93
NOTICE OF TRIAL.
In misdemeanor, practice as to, 299
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF.
be In high treason, what is, 76
A defendant, charged with the possession
Indictments for false declaration, under, 437
Held, that these certificates, though not fore showing cause, in answer to an applica-
delivery, it is not necessary to negative any
application by the party chargeable before
the expiration of the month, inasmuch as
the judge would have jurisdiction to issue
the summons and commence the inquiry
whether any such application had been made
The indictment used the word “month :"
charged, that the prisoners “ were in the was expressly referred to in the indictment,
A count of an indictment for perjury con-
The affidavit denied the retainer :
ther the said J. N. R. be guilty of the per-
and form as by the said ind