continuity of the act. Mr Justice Field says (at p. 119): "But it is said that the continuity of the possession by the prisoner was broken by the act of the keeper in going to the trap and nicking the rabbits"; the learned Judge, by the use of the words "continuity of possession," shewing the grounds upon which the Court decided the case. The Court in The Queen v. Townley decided that the prisoner was not guilty; on the ground that the hiding in the hole in the ground of the dead rabbits was the same as if they had remained in the prisoner's possession. On these grounds I consider that these cases of The Queen v. Townley and The Queen v. Petch are authorities in favour of the Crown in this case. For these reasons I am of opinion that the conviction should be sustained. Eight Judges were of this opinion; though PALLES, C.B., dissented. Conviction affirmed. CHAPTER V. THE VALUE. [Some things are regarded by law as of so little value that there can be no larceny of them.] REX v. SEARING. CROWN CASE RESERVED. 1818. LEACH 350. The prisoner was tried before Mr Baron WOOD, at the Lent Assizes for Hertfordshire, for larceny, in stealing "five live tame ferrets confined in a certain hutch," of the price of fifteen shillings, the property of Daniel Flower. It appeared in evidence that ferrets are valuable animals, and that those in question were sold by the prisoner for nine shillings. The jury found the prisoner guilty. But on the authority of 2 East's Pleas of the Crown 614, where it is said that ferrets (among other things) are considered of so base a nature that no larceny can be committed of them, the learned Judge respited the judgment until the opinion of the Judges could be taken thereon. THE JUDGES met and considered this case. They were of opinion that ferrets (though tame and saleable) could not be the subject of larceny; and that judgment ought to be arrested. [See also THE CASE OF PEACOCKS, p. 249; and REGINA v. ROBINSON, infra.] [Yet even a small slip of paper is of sufficient value.] REGINA v. PERRY. CROWN CASE RESERVED. 1845. 1 CARRINGTON AND KIRWAN 725; 1 DENISON 69. The prisoner, in one count of the indictment, was charged, as a servant of the Great Western Railway Company, with stealing an order for the payment of money, to wit, an order for the payment of £13. 98. 7d., the property of the Great Western Railway Company; in another count the thing stolen was described to be "one piece of paper of the value of one penny," of the goods and chattels of the Great Western Railway Company. In other counts, the property was laid in different ways. It appeared that the Great Western Railway Company being indebted for poor-rates to the overseers of the parish of Taunton St James in the sum of £13. 98. 7d., a cheque for that amount was by the proper authority drawn at Paddington upon their London bankers, and then transmitted through the hands of various officers of the company to the superintendent at the Taunton station. He received it on Saturday, the 1st of March; and at the time when the prisoner, the chief clerk there, was going into the town to his dinner, placed it in his hands, ordering him to pay it to the overseer, and to bring him a stamped receipt on his return. On his return, the superintendent asked the prisoner if he had paid the overseer; he answered, "Yes"; and being asked for the receipt, said, that the overseer, not having one by him, had promised to forward it to a certain inn in the town for him. In truth, the prisoner had not paid it, and on Monday morning got it changed by a tradesman in Taunton, and applied the proceeds to his own use. W. C. Rowe and Edwards, for the prisoner, objected that the cheque being void for want of a stamp was not a valuable security, and could not be used in evidence. They cited the stat. 55 Geo. III., c. 184, s. 13. COLERIDGE, J. Overruled the objection, and reserved the case for the opinion of the fifteen Judges. Verdict. Guilty. W. C. Rowe. I submit that this cheque was void, and that the prisoner could not be properly convicted of stealing it. Lord DENMAN, C.J. penny? Is it not a piece of paper of the value of one ALDERSON, B. There is no difference in the offence of stealing a cheque and stealing a piece of paper, and the count which states this to be a piece of paper puts an end to all question. W. C. Rowe. The only two cases at all resembling the present case are Rex v. Clark and Rex v. Bingley. In the former of these cases it was held, that a person who stole re-issuable notes after they had been paid might be convicted of larceny, in stealing the piece of paper bearing the stamps; and in the latter, that a piece of paper on which the prosecutor had written a memorandum as to some money due to him was the subject of larceny. In those cases the paper might be of some value to the owner; but it is here rendered valueless by a void security being written on it. Mr Serjeant Hawkins, in treating of those things which are the subject of larceny, says3, "They ought to have some worth in themselves, and not to derive their whole value from the relation they bear to some other thing which cannot be stolen, as paper or parchment on which are written assurances concerning lands, or obligations, or covenants, or other securities for a debt, or other chose in action." WIGHTMAN, J. Not as valuable securities. But are they not pieces of paper? CRESSWELL, J. If a blank cheque had been stolen, would that be a larceny? W. C. Rowe. I think it would. CRESSWELL, J. Would it be worse for being filled up? In Rex v. Clark bankers' paid notes were held to be the subject of larceny of the stamps and paper. The paper was held to be "of some value"; and I do not see how the stamps carry the thing further, except by making the paper of greater value. TINDAL, C.J. There are two charges here-the one a charge of stealing a valuable security; the other a charge of stealing a piece of 1 R. and R. C. C. 181. 25 C. and P. 602. 3 1 Hawk. P. C.; Bk. I., ch. 33, s. 22. paper. You may get rid of the first by its being a bad cheque; but how can you get rid of the other? W. C. Rowe. It appeared to me that the effect of converting the paper into a cheque was to make it valuable, if at all, as a security for money; and that, the moment the paper had a cheque written upon it, it became a chose in action, which is not the subject of larceny. ALDERSON, B. the chose in action The nature of the paper is not so wholly absorbed in as you put it. W. C. Rowe. If the paper is not wholly absorbed in the chose in action, I should submit that it was of so infinitesimal value as to fall within the rule (de minimis non curat lex). Lord DENMAN, C.J. Your client got £13. 98. 7d. for it. W. C. Rowe. This cheque never could fulfil any good purpose, for want of a stamp. I submit, therefore, that it was valueless, and not the subject of larceny. The case was considered by the Judges, who held the conviction right, as, at all events, there was a stealing of a piece of paper, which was sufficient to sustain a count for larceny. [Or mere carrion.] REGINA v. EDWARDS AND ANOTHER. CROWN CASE RESERVED. 1877. 13 Cox 384. The prisoners were tried at the West Kent Quarter Sessions, held at Maidstone, on the 5th January, 1877, on an indictment charging them with stealing three dead pigs, the property of Sir William Hart Dyke, Bart. The evidence was to the following effect: The three pigs in question having been bitten by a mad dog, Sir William Hart Dyke, to whom they belonged, directed his steward to shoot them. The steward thereupon shot them each through the head, and ordered a man named Paylis to bury them behind the barn. The steward stated that he had no intention of digging them up again, or of making any use of them. Paylis buried the pigs, pursuant to directions, behind a barn on land belonging to Sir William Hart Dyke, in a place where a brake stack is usually placed. The hole in which the pigs were buried was three feet or more deep; and the soil was trodden in over them. The prisoner Edwards was employed to help Paylis to bury the pigs. Edwards was seen to be covering the pigs with brakes; and in answer to Paylis's question why he did so, said that it would keep the water out, and it was as well to bury them "clean and decent." The two prisoners went the same evening and dug up the pigs; and took them to the railway station, covered up in sacking, with a statement that they were three sheep; and sent them off for sale to a salesman in the London Meat Market, where they were sold for £9. 3s. 9d., which was paid to the prisoners for them. The counsel for the prisoners submitted that there was no evidence in support of the charge to go to the jury; on the following grounds: Firstly, that the property was not proved as laid in the indictment, as Sir William Hart Dyke had abandoned his property in the pigs; secondly, that under the circumstances the buried pigs were of no value to the prosecutor; and thirdly, that under the circumstances the buried pigs were attached to the soil, and could not be the subject of larceny. The Chairman, however, thought that the case was one for the jury; and directed them as to the first point that in his opinion there had been no abandonment, as Sir William's intention was to prevent the pigs being made any use of, but that if the jury were of opinion that he had abandoned the property they should acquit the prisoners. He also told the jury that he thought there was nothing in the other two objections. The jury found the prisoners guilty. The question for the consideration of the Court is, whether, having reference to the objections taken by prisoners' counsel, there was evidence on which the jury were justified in convicting the prisoners of larceny. No counsel appeared to argue on either side. |