REPORTERS.

CRIMINAL APPEAL CASES, before all the Judges, by J. THOMPSON, Esq.; CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq.; NORTHERN CIRCUIT, by R. D. M. LITTLER, Esq.;

OXFORD CIRCUIT, by R. SAWYER, Esq.;

HOME CIRCUIT, by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq.;

NORFOLK CIRCUIT, by JOHN B. DASENT, Esq.;

WESTERN CIRCUIT, by EDWARD W. Cox, Esq.;

NORTH WALES CIRCUIT, by ENEAS J. M'INTYRE, Esq.;
IRELAND, by P. J. M'KENNA, Esq.;

Barristers-at-Law.

REPORTS

OF

Criminal Law Cases.

Freland.

DUBLIN COMMISSION COURT, GREEN STREET.

(Before LEFROY, C. J., and MONAHAN, C. J.)

August 10, 1854.

REG. v. GRAHAM GLASSIE and FRANCES COONEY. (a)

Evidence- Admissibility of prosecutor's testimony against person jointly indicted with prosecutor's wife-Stealing by paramour of property taken by wife when eloping.

Where a prisoner is indicted jointly with the prosecutor's wife, who had eloped with him, for stealing clothes and money, the property of the husband, the wife should be acquitted, as no indictment lies against her, but the husband's evidence is admissible against the male prisoner. The fact that the wife's clothes (which are in point of law the property of the husband) are found in the trunk of a person with whom she has eloped, is evidence to go to the jury of an intention to appropriate such clothes, and if the jury find that the intention was to remove them out of the husband's control, and to keep them within the prisoner's disposal, the offence is complete.

THE prisoners were indicted for stealing 161 and divers articles

of wearing apparel, the property of Robert Cooney. There was a second count as receivers. From the evidence, it appeared that the female prisoner was the wife of the prosecutor, and that she had eloped with the male prisoner, taking with her the articles mentioned in the indictment. The prisoners had been arrested in Cork, and at the time of their arrest the clothes were found in a

VOL. VII.

(a) Reported by P. J. M'KENNA, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

B

REG.

v.

GLASSIE AND
COONEY.

1854.

Husband and wifeEvidence.

trunk belonging to the male prisoner, and acknowledged by him to be his. The woman had the key of the trunk, however, and gave it to the constable, saying she had put them there. The Crown were about examining the husband for the prosecution, when

J. A. Curran, for the prisoners, objected to the reception of his evidence in a case in which his wife was indicted jointly with the prisoner at the bar. It is laid down in Archbold's Criminal Law, 227, that a husband or wife cannot be witness for a person jointly indicted with the wife or husband. R. v. Smith (1 Moo. C. C. 289) is the authority referred to for the proposition.

There is a case in Roscoe's Criminal Law, 149, where a woman was not allowed to prove an alibi for persons jointly indicted with her husband.

Per Curiam.-The woman is entitled to be acquitted, as she could not steal her husband's property. Now, if there were separate bills sent up against the prisoners, the husband's evidence would be admissible on the trial of the male prisoner. The evi

dence was admitted.

J. A. Curran, in addressing the jury, observed that the probability was, that the woman was taking those clothes for her own use, and that it was not reasonable to say, even if they were in Cooney's trunk, that he was taking such articles either for his own use or to convert them to any purposes of his own.

LEFROY, C. J., in charging the jury, after going through the evidence, said: We are of opinion that the husband was a competent witness for the prosecution, as a wife cannot be convicted for stealing her husband's goods, and in reality he has been examined only against the male prisoner, as the wife must be acquitted of this charge, and the only objection taken is, that the prisoners have been jointly indicted, one which we do not think should exclude his evidence under the circumstances. With regard to the wife, you should acquit her, and the only question for your consideration is the evidence of the male prisoner being a participator under the circumstances mentioned. The law is, if a person takes from the wife of any man his goods, under circumstances which indicate taking with a felonious intent, he will be equally culpable as if he took them from the husband directly. You should then direct your attention to the evidence in that view. It is stated by the first witness that the male prisoner was living as servant in the same house with the prosecutor and his wife, that the prosecutor had given the female prisoner 187. to keep for him, and, as from the evidence, it appears that none of that money came to his hands, you should acquit him of that part of the charge. There is, however, another, that of stealing the clothes of the wife, which are, in point of law, the property of the husband. These are traced into his possession under circumstances which will lead to the inference that he knew them to be the clothes of the prosecutor's wife. With that view it is given in evidence that the name of the woman was changed, and a passage ticket to America taken out in the joint