found to contain coloured stones of the value of 41. He stated, also, that he had no authority from his master to lend money, except upon pledges of an equivalent value; and that when he delivered the money, and also the property stated in the indictment, he supposed he had an equivalent for them in the diamonds in his pocket. He further stated, that when he delivered the goods in the indictment, he parted with them entirely, thinking the diamonds left with him were of sufficient value to cover the value of them, and the cash advanced; and that before he parted with them he had received the parcel, containing, as he supposed, the diamonds; that he had before examined the genuine diamonds, and might then have detained them; but as the pri soner said they might go through the hands of a second person, and be changed, he handed the genuine diamonds back to the prisoner, for the special purpose only of being sealed. Upon these facts being proved, The learned SERJEANT was inclined to think, that inasmuch as the property laid in the indictment was parted with by Burgess, absolutely under the impression that the prisoner had returned him the parcel containing the diamonds, that the prisoner's offence did not amount to felony; but he felt it his duty, previous to the verdict, to submit the substance of the facts proved to the learned JUDGES then present, who thought, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be more prudent to leave the facts to the jury; and if they convicted, afterwards to submit the case to the consideration of the TWELVE JUDGES. The jury found the prisoner guilty, and the learned SERJEANT reserved the case for the opinion of THE JUDGES. 1826. JACKSON'S Case. 1826. JACKSON'S In Hilary term, 1826, THE JUDGES met, and considered this case; and were unanimous that the case was not larceny, because the servant, who had a general authority from the master, parted with the property and ownership, not merely with the possession. (a) 1826. The statute 8&9W.3.c.26. in that part which relates to instruments to mark the edges, is not confined to such instru ments as were in use when that act was passed; it ex THE REX v. THEODORE MOORE. HE prisoner was tried before Mr. JUSTICE BURROUGH at the summer assizes for the county of Staf ford, in the year 1825, for treason. The indictment charged that the prisoner, not being a person employed in or for the mint or mints, &c., nor authorized, &c. on the 26th day of May, 1825, "one edger and edging tool, instrument, or engine, not of common use in any trade, but contends to new- trived for marking of money round the edges, with ly-invented in- graining or marks resembling those on the edges of monies coined in his Majesty's mint, without any lawful authority or sufficient excuse for that purpose, knowingly, feloniously, and traitorously had in his custody and possession, against the duty of his allegiance, and against the statute, &c." struments, which will produce the same effect. Nor is it con instruments as, used by the hand, unconnected with any other power, will produce the effect. A collar marking the edge, by having the coin forced through it by machinery, is an instrument within the act, though this mode of marking the edges is of modern invention. There were other counts, two of which used the word making instead of marking, in compliance with the printed editions of the statute 8 & 9 W.3. c. 26., on which statute the indictment was framed; but at the trial an examined copy of the parliament roll was produced and proved, by which it appeared that the word is marking. (a) See Rex v. Longstreath, infra, p. 137., Rex v. Campbell, infra. On the trial it appeared to the learned JUDGE to be doubtful, whether the thing found in the prisoner's custody and possession was an edger and edging tool, instrument, or engine, contrived for marking of money, &c. within the meaning of the act. The learned JUDGE told the Jury to consider it to be within the statute, and that if they were of opinion that the prisoner knowingly, feloniously, and traitorously had it in his custody and possession, they should find him guilty, and he would reserve the point for the consideration of the Judges. The learned JUDGE then stated the evidence to the Jury, and they found the prisoner guilty. All the witnesses called the instrument produced, a collar; it was of a round shape; it was not to be used by itself, nor in the manner that the edging tool formerly in use was. The former instrument was used by the hand alone, and with it the edging or milling was made. That found in the prisoner's possession and custody was used in the following manner: - To a very large block of wood, a very large and strong screw was fixed; immediately under the screw, there was a place in the block made to receive the collar, and of the exact size of it; in this the collar was placed and fastened therein by four other screws on four sides of it, so as to be immoveable. In the centre of the collar (which was thickest in the middle, and gradually sloping to its sides) there was a hole or opening of the exact size of a halfcrown; one of a pair of dyes were placed in the block, at the bottom of the hole or opening of the collar, the other at the bottom of the large screw. This screw was turned by a fly nine feet and one inch long; at each end of the fly a very heavy weight was fixed. A blank piece of metal of the size and shape of a half-crown being placed on the hole or 1826. MOORE'S Case. 1826. MOORE'S Case. opening of the collar, and the screw turned by means of the fly, by one act or stroke the blank piece of metal is forced through the collar, and not only are the head and tail of a half-crown impressed, but the marking is made round the edges, the sides of the hole or opening of the collar being formed, so as to produce that effect. A similar collar for marking shillings, eight thousand four hundred blanks for shillings, and six thousand three hundred and sixty for half-crowns, were found on the prisoner. The block of wood, screw, and weights weighed above seven hundred pounds. It was proved by a witness, who had been monier of the mint for fifty-two years, that collars of this description had been used in the mint since the establishment of the new mint in 1815; but before that time the graining or milling was done with a graining tool used by the hand. The learned JUDGE reserved the following questions for the consideration of all the learned JUDGES: First, As this collar is a thing of more modern invention, and not at all like that, the custody or possession of which was meant (as it seems) to be prohibited by the statute, is it an edger, edging tool, instrument, or engine within the meaning of the statute ? Secondly, Whether, as it cannot be used by itself, but must be used in conjunction with the press-screw, &c., it is properly (by itself) an edger, edging tool, instrument, or engine? In Hilary Term, 1826, THE JUDGES met and considered this case; and held, unanimously, that the instrument was within the statute, and the conviction REX v. SAMUEL SHARPE. 1826. Secreting a letter, contain instruments s. 2, is not statute, if the object of the prisoner was within that letter with its contents acdirections, but cording to the to cheat the THE prisoner was tried before Mr. JUSTICE GASELEE (present Mr. JUSTICE BAYLEY), at the December sessions at the Old Bailey, in the year 1825, on an indictment framed on the 52 G.3. c. 143. s.2. which statute enacts," that if any deputy, &c. or any other officer or person whatsoever employed by or under the post-office in Great Britain, in receiving, stamping, sorting, charging, carrying, conveying, or deli- to deliver the vering letters or packets, or in any other business relating to the said office, shall, after the passing of this act, secrete, embezzle, or destroy any letter or packet, or bag or mail of letters with which he or she shall have been entrusted in consequence of such employment, or which shall, in any other manner, have come to his or her hands or possession whilst so employed, containing the whole or any part or parts of any bank note, bill of exchange, &c., or steal or take out of any letter, &c., the whole or any part or parts of such bank note, &c., every person so offending, and being thereof convicted, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and shall suffer death as a felon without benefit of clergy." The indictment in the first count stated the prisoner to be employed by and under the post-office of Great Britain in certain business relating to the said office, that is to say, in stamping letters and packets brought to the general post-office in London. That on the 24th November, 1825, a certain letter then lately before sent by the post, to wit, by the post from Liverpool in the county of Lancaster, to the said. general post-office in London, for and to be delivered revenue of the postage. |