1782. HEVEY, BEATTY AND CASE. THE JURY found the two prisoners Hevey and Beatty Guilty. AND the question was reserved for the consideration of M'CARTY'S THE JUDGES, Whether the evidence of Beatty having said it was a good bill, was sufficient proof of the allegation in the indictment that he had written the acceptance thereon. AND ALL THE JUDGES on 17 April 1782, were unanimously of opinion, that the confession was properly left to the Jury, as evidence from which they might find the fact of his having written the acceptance, and that the conviction was right. CASE CXVII. THE KING against HENRY COSLET. To remove a AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1782, Henry Coslet package from the head to the was indicted for stealing a quantity of currants, the property tail of a wag- of John Parker. gon, with a felonious intent to take it away, is a sufficient asportation to constitute larceny; but merely to alter the position of a package on the spot where it lies, is not. S. C. 2 East, 45, 48, 137, 160. Kely, 24. 1 Hale, 504. THE prosecutor was the proprietor of the Uxbridge waggon, in the forepart of which the goods laid in the indictment were packed. The prisoner got into the waggon, and after groping about on his hands and knees, laid hold of this parcel of currants, and had got near the tail of the waggon with them when he was apprehended. The parcel was afterwards found near the middle part of the waggon. THE Jury found the prisoner Guilty; but as he had not carried the goods out of the waggon, the Court doubted, 556. Bro. Cor. Whether this was a sufficient asportation to constitute the crime of larceny. The judgment was accordingly respited, and the case reserved for the consideration of the TWELVE JUDGES; and on 17th April 1782, they were unanimously of opinion, That as the prisoner had removed the property from the spot where it was originally placed, and the Jury had found that he had so removed it with intent to steal, it was a sufficient taking and carrying away to constitute the offence (a). 1 Hawk. 134. (a) MR. BARON PERRYN, before whom the prisoner was tried, mentioned a case of one Cherry which had been reserved at the Oxford Lent Assizes 1781, by MR. JUSTICE NARES for the consideration of the TWELVE JUDGES.-The prisoner was indicted for stealing, taking and carrying away a wrapper and four pieces of linen cloth. This bale contained linen, packed up in the form of a long square; and was put into a waggon travelling the Acton Road; it laid lengthways in the waggon; the prisoner set it up on one end, for the greater conveniency of taking the linen out; and cut the cloth or wrapper all the way down with intent to take out the contents, but he was discovered and apprehended before he had taken any thing out of it. The Jury found the prisoner guilty, but the case was saved for the opinion of the Judges, whether this was a sufficient taking away to support the indictment. And on 2d May 1781, the whole TWELVE JUDGES were of opinion that it was not such a removal of the property as was necessary to constitute the offence of larceny. 1782. COSLET'S CASE. THE KING against RICHARD carrell. CASE CXVIII. AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1782, Richard Car- A garret made use of as a under the THE house in which the offence was committed belonged to one Nash, who did not live in any part of it himself, but let the whole of it out in separate lodgings, from week to week. John Jordan had two apartments in the house, viz. a sleeping-room up one pair of stairs, and a workshop in the garret, which he rented by the week, as tenant at will to 506. Nash. This workshop was the room broke open by the prisoner. THE Jury found the prisoner Guilty: but the case was referred to the consideration of the JUDGES, upon the question, Whether, under the circumstances above-mentioned, the indictment could be supported for burglary in the dwellinghouse of John Jordan? On the first day of Easter Term 1782, the TWELVE Judges assembled at LORD MANSFIELD's Chambers; and ten of them were unanimously of opinion, That as Nash, the owner of the house, did not inhabit any part of it, the indictment had properly charged it to be the dwelling-house of John Jordan, same roof. S. C. 2 East, 1782. CARRELL'S CASE. (1) Ante, Old Bailey, October Session 1772. the lodger (a); and they said, the case of the King v. Rogers (1) was precisely in point with the present case. (a) The two other Judges thought that it was not the mansion-house of Jordan, but that it might have been laid to be the mansion-house of Nash: to which opinion some of the other Judges inclined, if it were not the mansion of Jordan, 2 East, 506. But see Trapshaw's case, post, August Session 1786. CASE CXIX. To obtain property from THE KING against JOHN PATCH. AT the Old Bailey in February Session 1782, John Patch another by the was indicted before MR. JUSTICE GOULD, present Mr. BARON PERRYN, and MR. JUSTICE BULLER, for stealing a silver watch, a steel chain, a gold seal, two pieces of foreign coin, and seven shillings in money, the property of Jeremiah Bumstead. practice of 678. Kely. 24, 81. Shower, 50, 1 Hale, 507. 136, 137. THE prosecutor deposed, that the prisoner and two other persons who made their escape, had joined company with him in the street, and after walking a short space with him one of them stooped down and picked up a purse, which upon inspection was found to contain a ring, and a receipt for 1477. purporting to be the receipt of a jeweller for "a rich "brilliant diamond ring." The prisoner proposed that they should go into some public-house, to consider in what manner their respective portions of this prize should be divided, and accordingly they all four of them went into an ale-house on Saffron-hill. Various modes of distribution were suggested: at length the prisoner asked the prosecutor, if it would be agreeable to him to take the ring into his own possession, and to deposit his money and his watch as a security to return it upon receiving his portion of its value. The prosecutor assented to the proposal; and signed a written agreement, dictated by the prisoner, "That when the pri 66 soner, or either of the other two men, returned the watch ❝and money, and seventy pounds, he would redeliver to "them the purse and the ring." The prosecutor accordingly laid the watch and money mentioned in the indictment upon the table, and received the ring. The prisoner beckoned the prosecutor out of the room, upon a pretence of 1782. speaking to him in private; and during this interval the PATCH'SCASE. other two men marched off with the property. The abrupt manner in which they went away made the prosecutor conceive that he had been defrauded, but the prisoner told him not to be uneasy, for he knew the two men very well, and would take care that he should have his money and watch again; but he secured the prisoner, who then made proposals to him to make the matter up. The ring was valued at ten shillings. tember Ses It was objected by the prisoner's Counsel, that as the prosecutor had parted voluntarily with his property, it was a fraud only, and not a felony; but the CoURT, upon the authority of the case of The King v. Pear (1), referred (1) Ante, Old it to the Jury to consider, Whether the whole transac- Bailey Seption was not an artful and preconcerted scheme in the sion, 1779. three men, feloniously to obtain the prosecutor's watch and money? And whether the prisoner and the other two men were not all in concert together to procure by such a pretext any man's money whom they might meet, and to embezzle it, or, in other ways to steal it. THE Jury found the prisoner guilty; and he was sentenced to raise gravel three years on the river Thames (a). (a) The opinions of the three Judges who presided at the trial were founded on this, that the possession was obtained by fraud, and the property not altered; for the prosecutor was to have it again; and therefore it was not like the case of goods sold on credit where the buyer means immediately to convert them into money, and is not able, nor intends to pay for them; for there the buyer gets the absolute property by the act and consent of the owner, 2 East, 679. And at the Old Bailey in December Session 1783, John Anderson was tried before MR. BARON HOTHAM, for stealing a watch, a chain, two seals and a guinea from John Robertson, by the practice of ring-dropping, and convicted on the authority of this case. 1782. CASE CXX. The offence of privately stealing from the person, cannot be committed on a person who has ren dered himself senseless by intoxication. S. C. 2 East, 704. Vide Rex v. post. 129. by which the 8 Éliz. c. 4. is repealed. 490. THE KING against GRIBBLE. AT the Old Bailey February Session 1782, an indictment on the statute 8 Eliz. c. 4. was preferred, charging the prisoner with having stolen a watch from Thomas Sheridan, privately from his person and without his knowledge. THE prosecutor had been drinking at a public-house with the prisoner, and being both of them much intoxicated, they went together to the prisoner's lodgings, where the prosecutor fell asleep; and while he was asleep the prisoner stole his watch. THE COURT ruled this not to be such a stealing privately as would oust the offender from the benefit of clergy, within the meaning of the legislature (1); and mentioned the following case as having been decided by the JUDGES:-A person who had become intoxicated at Vauxhall Gardens fell fast asleep in his way home, in one of the watch-houses or 2 Hawk. P. C. niches on Westminster-bridge. A waiter from Vauxhall also passing that way stole the buckles out of his shoes without waking him; and the JUDGES were of opinion, That the statute was intended to protect the property which persons by proper vigilance and caution should not be enabled to secure; but that it did not extend to persons who by intoxication had exposed themselves to the dangers of depredation, by destroying those faculties of the mind by the exertion of which the larceny might probably be prevented. THE Jury found the prisoner guilty of stealing; but not privately from the person (a). (a) At the Old Bailey December Session 1778, Mary Reading and Mary Jones were tried for privately stealing from the person. It appeared in evidence that the prosecutor a hackney-coachman, while he was waiting for his fare at the door of a brothel in Covent-garden, had laid himself down in the bottom of his coach with the door open and fallen asleep; and that the prisoners had rifled his pockets without waking him. THE COURT informed the Jury, that it was the opinion of the late MR. JUSTICE ASTON in a similar case, and with whose opinion they perfectly agreed, that this was not a case within the spirit of the Act of Parliament; for that it was evident from the preamble of it, that it was intended only for the protection of persons in public meetings, and places of proper resort. |