Evidence. Prove that the defendant was at the time he committed the offence employed under the post office. See R. v. Evan Rees, 6 C. & P. 606, ante, p. 510; R. v. Reason, Dears. 226; 23 L. J. (M. C.) 11 (ante, p. 510); R. v. Milner, 4 Cox, 275; R. v. Simpson, 4 Cox, 276. It seems not to be necessary to prove his appointment if it can be proved that he acted as an employee of the post office. R. v. Borrett [1833] 6 C. & P. 124, 1 Taylor, Ev. (9th ed.), p. 148 (and see ante, p. 344). Then prove that he stole the letter, with its contents (see ante, p. 434, et seq.); or that he embezzled, secreted, or destroyed it. It is not necessary to prove that the letter or valuable security was of any value. 7 W. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 40 (ante, p. 505). Prove that the letter was posted by calling the person who posted it, and producing the receipt or certificate, if any, given by the postal authorities of posting, or registration, or delivery (38 & 39 Vict. c. 22, s. 3; 54 & 55 Vict. c. 46, s. 4), or by producing the letter bearing a post-mark; which semble is prima facie evidence of posting. R. v. Plumer, R. & R. 264; 15 R. R. 741: Woodcock v. Houldsworth, 16 M. & W. 124: Roscoe, Nisi Prius Ev. (17th ed.), 123, 218: 1 Taylor, Ev. (9th ed.), pp. 158, 159: R. v. Johnson, 7 East, 65. Any letter posted in the ordinary way, whatever be its address or object, is a post letter within the statute; Young v. R., 1 Den. 194; 2 C. & K. 466; therefore, where a fictitious letter is sent, with money in it, to try the honesty of the defendant, the stealing of it is within the statute, Id.; overruling R. v. Gardner, 1 C. & K. 628. But the secreting, by a letter carrier, of a letter written by an inspector of the post office, for the purpose of trying the defendant's honesty, was held not to be a stealing of a post letter within the statute; it was held, however, that he might be convicted of simple larceny, in stealing a sovereign enclosed by the inspector in such letter, the sovereign being one of those which are occasionally found on the floor of the post office, having dropped out of letters, and which are carried to a fund which is under the direction of the postmaster-general; and that such sovereign might be described. as the property of the postmaster-general. R. v. Rathbone, 2 Mood. C. C. 242; C. & Mar. 220. So where, suspicions being entertained against the defendant, who was a subsorter in the General Post Office, the authorities there made up a letter, and enclosed coin in it, and put upon it the usual postage stamp; and an inspector delivered it in, at the window in the outer hall, to another inspector, who handed it to a third, who, after locking it up for the night, handed it to a sorter, who placed it amongst the letters which it was the prisoner's duty to sort, and the prisoner stole the letter and the money;-the ordinary course of posting a letter at the outer hall of the General Post Office being by placing it in the receiving-box; it was held that the prisoner was not rightly convicted of stealing a post letter containing money, and that the conviction must be confined to the count for simple larceny. R. v. Shepherd, Dears. 606; 25 L. J. (M. C.) 52. Where a servant who was sent with a letter and a penny to pay the postage, finding the door of the receiving-house shut, put the penny inside the letter, fastened it by means of a pin, and then put the letter in the unpaid letter-box: it was held that a messenger in the post office, who stole this letter with the penny in it, might be convicted of stealing a post letter containing money, though the money was not put in for the purpose of being conveyed by post to the person to whom the letter was addressed. R. v. Mence, C. & Mar. 234. Where a letter containing a bank-note was received by the postmistress for registration and not registered (though the fee had been paid), but placed by her under a glass case to which the prisoner (an officer of the post office) had access, the letter was held to be a post letter within 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 47 (ante, p. 506). R. v. Rogers, 5 Cox, 293, Cresswell, J. But where, the post office being at an inn, the person sent to put a letter, containing bank-notes, into the post, took it to the inn, with money to prepay the postage, and laid the letter and the money on it, upon a table in the lobby of the inn, in which the letter box was, and pointed out the letter to the female servant at the inn (not authorized to receive letters), who said "she would give it to them;" and she stole the letter and its contents: it was held that this was not a post letter within the 27th or 28th section of the statute, and the defendant could be convicted only of larceny. R. v. Harley, 1 C. & K. 89. An unsealed letter, delivered by the postmistress at G. to the defendant, the letter-carrier between that place and L., with the directions to obtain at the post office at L. a money order for one pound, and after enclosing it in the letter, to post the letter at L., was held to be, while in the defendant's hands, a post letter, and the defendant to be a person employed under the post office, so as that he might be convicted under this section. R. v. Bickerstaff, 2 C. & K. 761. Where the defendant, a person employed in the post office, having committed a mistake in the sorting of the letters, put some post letters down a water-closet, in order to avoid the supposed penalty attached to such a mistake, this was held to be not only a secreting but a larceny of the letters. R. v. Wynn, 1 Den. 365; 2 C. & K. 859; 18 L. J. (M. C.) 51. It was the duty of a letter carrier, on returning from his round, to bring back to the post office any letters which he had failed to deliver. A letter containing money having been given to him with other letters to deliver; on his return from his round, he brought back to the office the pouch, containing some letters which he had failed to deliver, but said nothing about the money-letter. Subsequently on enquiry being made of him, he produced the money-letter from his pocket; upon these facts it was held that he was rightly convicted of stealing the letter. R. v. Poynton, L. & C. 247; 32 L. J. (M. C.) 29. Indictment for stealing Money, etc., out of Letters. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36 (Post Office (Offences) Act, 1837), s. 27. (Ante, p. 503.) Commencement as ante, p. 505]-a certain valuable security, to wit, one bill of exchange for the payment of ten pounds ("any chattel, money, or valuable security") the property of the postmaster-general, from and out of a post letter feloniously did steal, take, and carry away; against the form [as ante, p. 465]. The property may be laid in the "postmastergeneral" and it is not necessary to allege or prove the security to be of any value. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 40 (ante, p. 505). As to the venue, see ante, p. 50, and 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 37, ante, p. 504. Felony: penal servitude for life or for not less than three years, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, ss. 27, 41, 42; 54 & 55 Vict. c. 69, s. 1. (Ante, p. 235). This offence is not triable at quarter sessions. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1 (ante, p. 126). Evidence. Prove a larceny of the chattel, money, or valuable security out of the letter, either directly or by circumstances from which it may be inferred. The mere larceny of money, etc., from a letter will not suffice to bring the case within this statute, for a post letter means a letter or packet transmitted by the post, and it is only a post letter from the time of its being delivered to a post office to the time of its being delivered to the person to whom it is addressed. See R. v. Rathbone (ante, p. 511): R. v. Young (ante, p. 511). A delivery to a letter carrier, or other person authorized to receive letters for the post, is a delivery to the post office; and a delivery at the house or office of the person to whom the letter is addressed or to him, or his servant or agent, or other person considered to be authorized to receive the letter according to the usual manner of delivering that person's letters, is a delivery to the person addressed. 47 & 48 Vict. c. 76, s. 19 (ante, p. 507). The words of the statute, "every person," include those employed by the post office as well as others. See R. v. Brown, R. & R. 32, n.; overruling R. v. Skutt, 1 Leach, 106; 2 Leach, 904; and R. v. Pooley, R. & R. 31; and see R. v. Salisbury, 5 C. & P. 155. Indictment for stealing, etc., Letters, etc., 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36 (Post Office (Offences) Act, 1837), s. 28 (ante, p. 503). Commencement as ante, p. 509]-feloniously did steal, take, and carry away one post letter ("a post-letter bag or post letter"), the property of the postmaster-general, from a post-letter bag ("a post-letter bag, or a post office, or an officer of the post office or a mail"); against the form [as ante, p. 465]. The property may be laid in the "postmaster-general,” and it is not necessary to allege or prove any value. As to the venue, see ante, pp. 50, 504. An indictment for stealing letters out of a post-office packet may easily be framed from the above precedent. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 29. Felony penal servitude for life or for not less than three years, or imprisonment not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour, 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, ss. 28, 41, 42 (ante, pp. 503, 505): 54 & 55 Vict. c. 69, s. 1 (ante, p. 235). This offence is not triable at quarter sessions. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1 (ante, p. 126). Evidence. Prove the larceny of the letter as directed ante, p. 434 et seq. The taking away and destroying of a post letter in order to suppress inquiries supposed by the defendant to be made in it about her character, was held to be a larceny of the letter. R. v. Jones, 1 Den. 188; 2 C. & K. 236. A person who with intent to deprive another to whom a letter is addressed of such letter and to commit a fraud, induces a servant of the post office to intercept and hand over such letter, which is in course of transmission by post, is either guilty of larceny as a principal felon, or is accessory before the fact of the larceny committed by the servant of the post office, and in either view can be convicted on an indictment charging him with larceny of the letter. R. v. James, 24 Q. B. D. 439; 59 L. J. (M. C.) 96. Where the defendant obtained the mail bags from the post office, pretending that he was the mail guard, and then ran away with them; the jury being of opinion that he got possession of them with intent to steal them, found him guilty; and the judges held the conviction to be right. R. v. Pearce, 2 East, P. C. 603, 673. In this case the property did not pass, for the postmaster had no property in the mail bags to part with. 2 East, P. C. 673. Taking the mail bags off the horse during the momentary absence of the person employed to carry them, was held to be a taking from his possession, within the meaning of the repealed statute 52 G. 3, c. 14, s. 3. R. v. Robinson, 2 Stark. (N. P.) 485. A.C.P. 33 Where a letter intended to be delivered in Brighton and addressed to Mrs. Fisher, 29, Gloucester St., was delivered at 29, Gloucester St., Lambeth, where the prisoner lodged, and the prisoner who was known to some persons as Fisher opened the letter and cashed a cheque contained in it, it was held that he could not be convicted of larceny of the cheque. R. v. Fish [1900] 64 J. P. 137, Bosanquet, Common Serjeant, on the ground that there was no evidence of animus furandi when the prisoner received the cheque. R. v. Mucklow, 1 Mood. C. C. 160, and R. v. Davies, Dears. 640: 25 ̃L. J. (M. C.) 91 (C. C. R.), were cited and followed. In such a case the indictment should be framed under 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 31, (ante, p. 503). The definition of a post letter is given in 48 & 47 Vict. c. 76, s. 19 (ante, p. 507). For the definition of the terms "letter," "packet," "mail," "mail bag," "officer of the post office," post-letter bag," etc., see 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 47 (ante, p. 506); 47 & 48 Vict. c. 76, s. 19 (ante, p. 507): 52 & 53 Vict. c. 63, s. 12 (ante, p. 507). Indictment for stopping Mails, with intent to rob, etc. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36 (Post Office (Offences) Act, 1837), s. 28 (ante, p. 503). Commencement as ante, p. 509]-a certain mail for the conveyance of post letters, feloniously did stop, with intent the same feloniously to search ("rob or search "); against the form [as ante, p. 465]. As to the venue, see ante, p. 50, and 7 IV. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 37 (ante, p. 504). Felony see the last precedent. This offence is not triable at quarter sessions: 5 & 6 Vict. c. 38, s. 1 (ante, p. 126). Evidence. Prove that the defendant stopped the mail, and prove the intent by circumstances from which it may be inferred. If the defendant actually robbed or searched the mail, his original intent so to do will be put beyond doubt. Indictment for retaining Letters after Delivery. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36 (Post Office (Offences) Act, 1837), s. 31 (ante, p. 503). Commencement as ante, p. 509]-unlawfully and fraudulently did retain ("shall fraudulently retain or wilfully secrete, or keep or detain, or being required to deliver up by any officer of the post office, shall neglect or refuse to deliver up") a certain post letter the property of the postmaster-general, which ought to have been delivered to a certain other person, to wit, one J. N. ("or a post letter or a post-letter bag, which shall have been sent "); against the form [as ante, p. 465]. The property may be laid in the postmaster-general, 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s, 40 (ante, p. 505). As to the venue, see ante, pp. 50, 501. Misdemeanor: fine and imprisonment, 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 31; with or without hard labour. Id. s. 42. Evidence. Prove that the letter ought to have been delivered to J. N.; that it was delivered to the defendant, and was retained by him, as stated in the indictment. See R. v. Fish, 64 J. P. 137 (supra). If the defendant secretes, or keeps, or detains the letter after request to deliver it up by an officer of the post office, it may be presumed that he does so wilfully, unless, at the time of the refusal to deliver it up, he gives some bonâ fide excuse for so doing. To make out a fraudulent retainer, however, it must be shown, from the contents of the letter or other circumstances, that the defendant well knew the letter was not intended for him. It will be no defence that the letter or letter bag was found by the defendant, or any other person. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 31 (ante, p. 504). Indictment for endeavouring to procure the commission of offences against the Post Office. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36 (Post Office (Offences) Act, 1837), s. 36 (ante, p. 504). Commencement as ante, p. 509]-unlawfully did solicit ("solicit or endeavour to procure") one J. S., then being a person employed by and under the post office of the United Kingdom, unlawfully and contrary to his duty to open a post letter, the property of the postmaster-general; against the form [as ante, p. 465]. From this and the foregoing precedents an indictment may easily be framed for procuring the commission of any “felony or misdemeanor, punishable by the post-office Acts." As to the venue, see ante, pp. 50, 504. Misdemeanor: imprisonment not exceeding two years, 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 36, with or without hard labour. Id. s. 42. At common law, and apart from the statute, the offence is a misdemeanor (see ante, p. 3): but hard labour could not be imposed. See ante, pp. 237, 238. Evidence. Prove that the defendant solicited or endeavoured to procure the commission of the offence stated. It is immaterial whether the offence was completed or not. STEALING FROM A WRECK. Statute. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96 (Larceny Act, 1861), s. 64.]—Whosoever shall plunder or steal any part of any ship or vessel which shall be in distress, or wrecked, stranded, or cast on shore, or any goods, merchandise, or articles of any kind belonging to such ship or vessel, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years. ... And the offender may be indicted and tried either in the county or place in which the offence shall have been committed or in any county or place next adjoining. [This section is framed from 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 18, and 7 W. & 1 Vict. c. 87, s. 8.] Indictment. Sussex, to wit:-The jurors for our lord the King upon their oath present, that, on the first day of June, in the year of our Lord certain ship (" any ship or vessel"), the property of a person or persons to the jurors aforesaid unknown, was stranded ("in distress, or wrecked, stranded or cast on shore "), and that J. S., on the day and year aforesaid, ten pieces of oak plank ("any part of any ship, etc."), being parts of the said ship [or, twenty pounds weight of cotton ("any goods, merchandise or articles of any kind "), of the goods and merchandise of a person or |