upon an indictment for burglary in the dwelling-house of Thomas goods steal Noon, at Ilkeston, in that county, and stealing a box, two purses, them from the 221. 10s. in silver, 6s. 3d. in copper, a promissory note for the pay- person in whose ment of 10%., and eighteen promissory notes for the payment of custody they are, and who is 11. each, the property of the said Thomas Noon. In another count responsible for the property was stated to belong to Sarah Sisson, Ann Fretwell, their safety, he and Ann Noon. The box and the other articles (which were in is guilty of the box when taken by the prisoner) were the property of a Female larceny. Friendly Society, established under the statute of the 33 G. 3. c. 54. of which the rules, orders, and regulations have been exhibited to, and allowed and confirmed by the sessions, as directed by that statute. The society held their meetings at a public-house kept by the said Thomas Noon. The funds of the society were kept in the box; the box with such funds in it was always, after the meeting of the society broke up, deposited in a bed chamber in the house of the said Thomas Noon. The said Sarah Sisson, Ann Fretwell, and Ann Noon, were stewardesses of the society appointed according to its rules. The box, as directed by the rules of the society, had three different locks upon it, each stewardess having one key. The stewardesses are by the rules to serve for one year, and then to resign their keys, cash, and books to the new stewardesses. It is directed by the rules of the society, that the box shall remain in the custody of the landlord of the house, or any other person whom the society shall appoint, he being responsible for whatever effects were lodged therein. The society met the evening the offence was committed, and the box, with the funds in it, was, after the meeting broke up, deposited in the usual place in Thomas Noon's house, from whence it was afterwards taken by the prisoner, who gained admission to the chamber by means of a ladder, and breaking open the window. The prisoner had been for some time a member of the society, One of the rules of the society is, that each member shall pay sixpence to the stock every fourth Monday, and if a member fail to pay for four successive nights, she shall be excluded. The prisoner had failed to pay for four successive nights, the last of which was the night the property was taken, but no order for excluding her had been made by the society. A doubt arose whether, considering the situation the prisoner stood in with respect to the property taken, the conviction was proper. And on case, ten judges (two absent) were clear that as the landlord was responsible to the society for the property, the conviction was right.

Embezzlement by Servants, &c.

[See 3 Burn, 187.]

Rex v. John Hall, MS. C.C.R. - The prisoner was convicted before BAYLEY J. at Lancaster Sum. Ass. 1821, of embezzling six one pound notes received by him as clerk to Messrs. Hollingshead & Co. It appeared in evidence, that on the 10th of November, he received from a Mrs. Webster, for and on account of Messrs. Hollingshead & Co., 18. in one pound notes, and he immediately entered in the books of Messrs. Hollingshead & Co. as the amount received 121. only, and he accounted to them only for 127. In the course of the same day, he received for them other sums amounting

If a servant immediately on receiving a sum

for his master, enters a smaller

in his master's books, and ultimately accounts to his master for only, he may be

the smaller sum

considered as

difference at the time he made

the entry.
And it will

make no differ-
ence, though
he received

to 1047. 2s.; and in the evening of that day he paid to Messrs. embezzling the Hollingshead & Co. 116. 2s. It was urged on the part of the prisoner, that the money he so paid might have included every one of the notes he received from Mrs. Webster, and if so, that he could not be considered as having embezzled any of those notes. Every one of those notes certainly might have been included in what he so paid, but his lordship told the jury that as in what the prisoner paid, he paid only 127. as and for all he received of Mrs. Webster, and he paid the other 1047. 2s. as and for money received of other persons, he ought to be considered as embezzling six of the notes he received from Mrs. Webster, because he would then have misapplied those specific notes to his own benefit, and to his master's prejudice. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and on case, nine his master toge-judges in M. T. 1821, (BEST J. absente) thought it an embezzlether, he might give his master ment from the time of making the false entry.

other sums for

his master on the same day, and in paying

them and the

smaller sum to

every piece of money or note he received at the time he

made the false entry.

Punishment of

servants, &c. robbing their employers.

By stat. 3 G. 4. c. 38. § 2. after reciting that whereas frequent depredations have of late been committed by clerks, apprentices, and servants, to the serious detriment and loss of their masters, mistresses, or employers; and it is expedient that such offenders, when entitled to benefit of clergy, should be made liable to a more severe punish36.4.c.38. §2. ment than can now by law be inflicted: it is therefore enacted, "that from and after the passing of this act, (24th June 1822), if any clerk, apprentice, or servant whatsoever, shall feloniously steal any goods, chattels, money, bond, bank note, cheque upon a banker or bankers, draft, promissory note for the payment of money, bill of exchange, or other valuable security or effects, from or belonging to, or in the possession, custody, or power of his, her, or their master or masters, mistress or mistresses, or employer or employers, and shall be lawfully convicted thereof, and be entitled to the benefit of clergy, then and in every such case, such offender or offenders, instead of being subjected to such punishment as may now by law be inflicted upon persons so convicted, and entitled to the benefit of clergy, may, at the discretion of the court by or before which he, she, or they shall be convicted, be ordered and adjudged to be transported beyond the seas for any term not excceding fourteen years, or to be imprisoned only, or to be imprisoned or kept to hard labour, in the common gaol, house of correction, or penitentiary house, for any term not exceeding three years.

Special property
or possession.
2 East's P. C.
652.

Special Property or Possession.

[Vide 3 Burn, 211, 212.]

Any one who has a special property in goods stolen may lay them to be his in an indictment for larceny, as a bailee, pawnee, lessee for years, carrier, or the like; a fortiori, they may be laid to be the property of the respective owners, and the indictment is good either way. But if it appear in evidence, that the party whose goods they are laid to be, had neither the property nor the possession (and for this purpose the possession of a feme covert or servant is, generally speaking, the possession of the husband or master) the prisoner ought to be acquitted on that indictment. The same rule prevails in the case of goods belonging

to a guest (a) stolen at an inn; they may be laid to be the pro-
perty either of the innkeeper or the guest. So, goods stolen from a
washerwoman (6) who takes in the linen of other persons to wash,
may be laid to be her goods; by PARKER C.J.; TRACY and
BURY JS.-For persons of this description have a possessory pro-
perty, and are answerable to their employers. So an agister has
a possession and property against all but the right owner.
In John Woodward's case, who was indicted for maliciously and
feloniously killing two sheep, the property of W. Dalton, it was
proved that the prosecutor had only taken the sheep in to agist for
another. Whereupon it was objected that the property was not
well laid in the agister; and upon reference to the judges in M. T.
1796, one of them doubted at first, because an agister of cattle is
not liable for them at all events, like an innkeeper for the goods
of his guest.
The majority, however, thought the conviction
right. But the matter stood over till H. T. 1797, when upon re-
ference to 4 Inst. 293., shewing that an agister has a possession;
and 2 Roll. Abr. 551., that he may maintain trespass against any
who takes the beasts; all the judges agreed that the conviction
was right.

653.

James Deakin and William Smith were indicted for stealing Rex v. Deakin spoons and other articles, laid in the second count (on which alone and Smith, O. B. they were convicted,) to be the property of one Markham. The April, 1800, goods had been sent by a tradesman in London to Mr. Bro- Cor. Grose J. 2 Leach, 875. derick at Spalding, by the Spalding coach, and were stolen by the 2 East's P. C. prisoners at Pondersend, out of the boot behind the coach. The question was, whether they were properly laid to be the property Property laid in of Markham, who was not the owner but only the driver of the stage coachman. coach, there being no contract between him and the proprietors, that he should be liable for any thing stolen, and it not appearing that he had been guilty of any laches. The case being referred to the judges, it stood over for some time, but finally the conviction was holden right, the coachman having the possession and a special property in the goods committed to his charge.

Clothes and other necessaries provided for children by their Necessaries for parents, are often laid to be the property of the parents, espe- children. cially while the children are of tender age; but it is holden good either way. At the sessions at the O. B. after E. T. 1701, TRACY and TURTON JS., and LOVELL, Recorder, doubted whether the property of a gold chain, which was taken from a child's neck, who had worn it for four years, ought not to be laid to be in the father. But Tanner, who had been an ancient clerk of the court, said that it had always been usual to lay it to be the goods of the child in such case, and that many indictments which had laid them to be the property of the father had been ordered to be altered by the judges. 2 East's P. C. 654. 12 Rep. 113.

The actual possession of the goods by a surviving partner,

Rex v. Eleanor Gaby, MS. C. C. R.-The prisoner was tried and convicted before CHAMBRE J., at Taunton Lent Ass. 1810, for grand larceny, in stealing some drapery goods, the property of Benjamin Dodge and Sarah Chilcott, widow. It was objected and the widow

that the indictment had misdescribed the property by alleging it of a deceased to be in Benjamin Dodge and Sarah Chilcott, concerning which partner, holden the evidence was, that the goods had been part of the joint stock to be a sufficient in trade of the said Benjamin Dodge and Chilcott, the late ownership. husband of the said Sarah Chilcott, and were so at the time of

A lodger, who invites a man to his room, and there steals his goods to the value of 40s.

when not about his person, is liable to be found guilty of stealing in a

Chilcott's death, which happened three or four days before Christ-
mas last.
He died, as the witness Dodge understood, without a
will, leaving his said widow and some young children, and no ad-
ministration had been granted of his effects. But the widow,
from the death of her husband, acted as partner, and regularly at-
tended the business of the shop. The goods mentioned in the in-
dictment were stolen on the 6th of January, and on the 20th of
the same month a division was made of the remaining stock, the
widow taking one half, and Dodge the other half. It was con-
tended, on the part of the prisoner, that the children in respect of
their interest under the statute of distributions, should have been
named with the other two as joint proprietors, or that the pro-
perty should have been alleged to be in the ordinary and the sur-
viving partner. But the learned judge held, that the actual pos-
session in Benjamin Dodge and Sarah Chilcott, as owners, was suf-
ficient, upon which the prisoner was convicted; and the judges on
case, held the property well laid, and therefore the conviction right.
Rex v. Thomas Hutchinson and Joseph Boffey, MS. C. C.R.
The prisoners were tried before RICHARDSON J., at Stafford Lent
Ass. 1820. Hutchinson was convicted of stealing, and Boffey of
receiving, scienter, &c., a quantity of brass, which, in the first
count, was laid to be the property of Thomas Penn, and 20 other
persons therein named, and in the second count, to be the pro-
perty of Samuel Evans. The property stolen formed the brass
chandelier and sconces (not fixed to the freehold) of a chapel of
protestant dissenters, and the persons named in the first count
were the trustees of the chapel; but the prosecutors were not
prepared to prove the trust deed, whereby they were appointed,
nor that all of them had acted in the trust or management,
some of them residing at a distance. Samuel Evans, in whom the
property was laid in the second count, stated that he was servant
to the managers, and had a salary of 51. a-year. That he for
many years had had the care of the chapel, and of the things in
it, to clean and keep in order. That he kept the keys, and that
no person except himself had a key of the chapel, but the minis-
ter had a key of the vestry, through which he could enter the
chapel. The trustees had no key. The witness received his
orders sometimes from the trustees and sometimes from the minis-
ter. No one resided in the chapel. On case, the judges thought
the property could not be considered as Evans's, and therefore
that the conviction was wrong.

In a Dwelling-house.

[See 3 Burn, 218.]

Rex v. John Taylor, MS. C.C.R. The prisoner was convicted before PARK J. at Lent Ass. 1820, of stealing a watch in the dwelling-house of John Wakefield. The prisoner lodged in the house of John Wakefield, and the prosecutor, who was an old acquaintance of the prisoner, and who could not get a bed in the public-house where they met, consented to accept part of his bed. They went home together, and neither John Wakefield nor any of his family knew of the prosecutor being there, so that he was the guest of the prisoner, who stole his watch from.

are under the

his bed's head. It having been held, that the stat. 12 Ann, c. 7. dwelling-house. does not extend to a man stealing in his own house, his lordship The goods of a doubted whether the prisoner was not to be considered as the lodger's guest owner with respect to the prosecutor; and as the statute was made protection of for the protection of property deposited in the house, and not on the dwellingthe person of the party, and the prosecutor was neither the occu- house. pier nor a settled inhabitant of the house in which the watch was taken, judgment was respited, and, on case, seven judges, out of E. T. 1820. nine assembled, held the conviction right.

See Rex v. Thompson and Macdaniel, 1 Leach, 338. 2 East's P. C. 644.

From Lodgings — In whom the property to be laid.

[See 3 Burn, 223.]

described as

Rex v. John Belstead, M.S. C. C. R. The prisoner was convicted In larceny the before RICHARDSON J. at the O. B. Feb. Sess. 1820, of breaking goods of a ready and entering the dwelling-house of James Anderson, in the day- furnished lodgtime (the said James Anderson and others being therein) and steal- ing must be ing therein certain bed-curtains, valences, sheets, pillows, pillow- the lodger's cases, pictures and looking-glasses, the property of the said James goods. Not the Anderson. The breaking and stealing were clearly proved; but it original owner's. appeared that James Anderson occupied part of the dwelling-house himself, and let out the rest in ready furnished lodgings, and that the property stolen was the furniture of a room let by Anderson to one Thomas Youren, furnished, at half-a-crown a week, and that a week was running at the time of the robbery. Youren usually left the key of his room with Anderson's wife to make the bed, &c. and had it from her when he wanted it. The door was opened by the prisoner by means of a false key. The learned judge doubted whether Anderson had a sufficient possession of this furniture to warrant the laying of the property in him, and, on case, the judges held that the goods should have been described as Youren's, for Anderson was not entitled to the possession, and could not have maintained trespass, and therefore the conviction was wrong. Vide 2 East's P. C.585. Ward v. Macauley, 4 T. R. 489. and Gordon v. Harper, 7 T. R. 9.

Leather.

Vide stat. 3 G. 4. c. 83. "Excise" (Leather), ante, p. 171. [See 3 Burn, 230.]

(A.) Information on stat. 39 & 40 G. 3. c. 66. § 4. against a Butcher for wilfully cutting a Calf Skin.

County of THE information and complaint of A. I. of

in the said county, cordwainer, taken and made upon oath before me J. P. esquire, one of his majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county, the

day of

the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and

in