Page images
PDF
EPUB

7 Geo. 4. c. 64. s. 14.

How indictments for offences committed on the property of partners may be laid.

How property belonging to counties may be laid.

persons cannot be laid as the property of that body, unless the body is incorporated; but should be described as belonging to the individuals who constitute that body, or some one of them. (n) And a recent case was decided upon this principle. By the 24G. 3. c. 15. certain inhabitants in seven parishes were incorporated by the name of the "Guardians of the Poor" of those parishes, and it was enacted that twelve directors should be appointed out of the guardians, and the property belonging to the corporation was vested in the "directors for the time being." The prisoner was indicted for embezzling monies of the directors; and an objection was taken that the money should have been described as the money of the guardians by their corporate name, or as the money of the individuals who formed the body of the directors calling them by their private names as individuals. And upon a case reserved, the Judges were of that opinion, on the authority of Rex v. Sherrington, and held the conviction wrong. (0)

It remains to notice certain cases in which the ownership of goods, and the mode of describing property in them have been regulated by the statute 7 Geo. 4. c. 64.

The fourteenth section of that statute, in order to remove the difficulty of stating the names of all the owners of property in the case of partners, and other joint owners, enacts "that in any in"dictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor wherein "it shall be requisite to state the ownership of any property what"soever, whether real or personal, which shall belong to or be "in the possession of more than one person, whether such per"sons be partners in trade, joint-tenants, parceners, or tenants "in common, it shall be sufficient to name one of such persons, "and to state such property to belong to the person so named, "and another or others, as the case may be, and whenever, in "any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor, "it shall be necessary to mention, for any purpose whatsoever, any partners, joint-tenants, parceners, or tenants in common, it "shall be sufficient to describe them in the manner aforesaid; " and this provision shall be construed to extend to all joint stock 66 companies and trustees."

[ocr errors]

The fifteenth section of the same statute, with respect to the property of counties, ridings, and divisions, enacts "that in any

indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor com"mitted in, upon, or with respect to any bridge, court, gaol, "house of correction, infirmary, asylum, or other building erected "or maintained, in whole or in part, at the expence of any county, "riding, or division, or on or with respect to any goods or chattels whatsoever, provided for or at the expence of any county, "riding, or division, to be used for making, altering, or repairing any bridge, or any highway at the ends thereof, or any court or "other such building as aforesaid, or to be used in or with any "such court or other building, it shall be sufficient to state any "such property, real or personal, to belong to the inhabitants of "such county, riding, or division; and it shall not be necessary "to specify the names of any such inhabitants.

66

(n) 7 Gco. 4. c. 64. s. 14.
(0) Rex v. Beacall, East. T. 1824,

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

How property

ordered for the use of the

poor of pa

The sixteenth section, with respect to the property of parishes, townships, and hamlets, enacts "that in any indictment or in"formation for any felony or misdemeanor committed upon or "with respect to any work-house or poor-house, or on or with rishes, &c. "respect to any goods or chattels whatsoever, provided for the may be laid. "use of the poor of any parish or parishes, township or town"ships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, or to be used in any "work-house or poor- house, in or belonging to the same, or by "the master or mistress of such work-house or poor-house, or by "any workmen or servants employed therein, it shall be sufficient "to state any such property to belong to the overseers of the 66 poor for the time being of such parish or parishes, township or "townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, and it shall not "be necessary to specify the names of all or any of such over"seers; (p) and in any indictment or information for any felony Howmaterials, or misdemeanor committed on or with respect to any materials, &c. for repair"tools, or implements provided for making, altering, or repairing ing highways, "any highway within any parish, township, hamlet or place, "otherwise than by the trustees or commissioners of any turn"pike road, it shall be sufficient to aver that any such things are "the property of the surveyor or surveyors of the highways for "the time being of such parish, township, hamlet or place, and "it shall not be necessary to specify the name or names of any "such surveyor or surveyors."

66

66

may be laid.

trustees may

The seventeenth section, with respect to the property under How property turnpike trusts, enacts "that in any indictment or information of turnpike "for any felony or misdemeanor committed on or with respect to be laid. any house, building, gate, machine, lamp, board, stone, post, "fence, or other thing erected or provided in pursuance of any "act of parliament for making any turnpike road, or any of the "conveniences or appurtenances thereunto respectively belong"ing, or any materials, tools, or implements provided for making, altering, or repairing any such road, it shall be sufficient to "state any such property to belong to the trustees or commis"sioners of such road, and it shall not be necessary to specify "the names of any of such trustees or commissioners."

66

The eighteenth section, with respect to property under commissioners of sewers, enacts "that in any indictment or in

(p) The statute 55 Geo. 3. c. 137. s. 1. vests goods, furniture, apparel, &c. provided for the use of the poor in the overseers of the parish, &c. for the time being, and their successors, and enacts that in any indictment in respect of such goods, &c. the said goods, &c. shall be laid or described to be the property of the overseers of the poor for the time being of such parish, &c. without stating or specifying their names. It was held that an indictment for stealing goods under this statute, might state them to be the goods of the overseers of the poor for the time being of the parish of A., and that this sufficiently imported

that they belonged at the time of the
theft to the persons who were then
the overseers. Thus, where the in-
dictment stated that the prisoner 6lbs.
weight of pork of the goods and chat-
tels of the overseers of the poor for
the time being of the parish of K. fe-
loniously did steal, &c. and a case was
reserved on the question whether this
was properly laid, the Judges were of
opinion, that it sufficiently imported
that the goods at the time of the theft
were the property of the then over-
seers, and therefore held the convic-
tion right. Rex v. Went, East. T.
1818, MS. Bayley, J., and Russ. & Ry.
359.

How in indictments for of

fences com

mitted on sewers, the

property may be laid.

66

"formation for any felony or misdemeanor committed on or with respect to any sewer or other matter within or under the view, "cognizance, or management of any commissioners of sewers, it "shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the "commissioners of sewers within or under whose view, cognizance, or management, any such things shall be, and it shall "not be necessary to specify the names of any of such commis"sioners."

66

Indictment.

Description of the goods.

SECTION IV.

Of the Indictment, Trial, and Punishment.

It is not intended to enter particularly upon the form of an indictment for larceny, concerning which ample information is given in those works which treat expressly upon the subject of criminal pleading. (q) It may be briefly observed, that the prisoner must be charged with the offence in the technical form, "feloniously "did steal, take, and carry away;" or, as it is said to be most proper, when cattle are the subject matter of the larceny, "feloni"ously did steal, take, and lead away." (r) And though it is not now necessary that the value of the goods should be stated in order that it may appear whether the offence be grand or petit larceny, yet some value should in general be stated, as if the property be of no value it is not a subject in respect of which larceny can be committed. And it has been abundantly shewn that the property must be laid in some person who has in legal consideration a sufficient ownership for that purpose. ($)

With respect to the proper description of the goods stolen, difficulties will sometimes occur. The general rule is given, that they should be described with such a certainty as will enable the jury to decide, whether the chattel proved to have been stolen is the very same with that upon which the indictment is founded, and shew judicially to the court that it could have been the subject matter of the offence charged, and enable the defendant to plead his acquittal or conviction to a subsequent indictment relating to the same chattel. (t) And it is quite necessary that it should appear, on the face of the indictment, that the thing taken is such whereof larceny may be committed: so that, as we have seen, where the indictment was for stealing a pheasant, which primá

(q) Stark. Crim. Plead. 10, et sequ. 180, et sequ. 426, et sequ. 3 Chit. Crim. L. 944, et sequ. Cro. Circ. Comp. p. 246, et sequ.

(r) 2 Hale 184. 2 East. P. C. c. 16. s. 159. p. 778. Starkie Crim. Plead. 73, 427, 437. 3 Chit. Crim. L. 950. In Stark. Crim, Plead. 73. note (1) the

learned author says, "It has been
"said that for stealing a horse, it
"should be cepit et abduxit, for steal-
"ing a sheep cepit et effugavit; but I
"find no decision which warrants
"these unprofitable distinctions."
(s) Ante, 154, et sequ.
(1) Stark. Crim. Plead. 181.

facie is not a subject of larceny, it was holden to be necessary to state that it was either dead, tame, or confined. (u)

The goods may be described as the goods of a person by the Name of the name which such person has assumed, though it be not his right owner. name. The prisoner was indicted for stealing in the dwellinghouse of Mary Johnson certain goods, her property; and it appeared in evidence that her real name was Davis, but that she had passed by the name of Johnson, without any purpose of fraud, for five years. Upon the point being saved, the Judges, (seven being present) were clear that the time she had been known by the name of Johnson warranted her being so called in the indictment. (w)

A set of new handkerchiefs in a piece may be described as so many Description of handkerchiefs, though they are not separated one from another, goods as they if the pattern designates each, and they are described in the trade are known in as so many handkerchiefs. Upon an indictment against the prisoners for stealing six handkerchiefs, it appeared that the handkerchiefs were new and in one piece, but that the pattern designated each, there being a light coloured line between each; and it also appeared that the article was known in the trade as a piece of silk handkerchiefs, and that it was the custom to charge such an article as so many handkerchiefs. The point being saved, the Judges held that the property was rightly described as six handkerchiefs, and that the conviction was right. (x)

statute.

It is also laid down as a rule that, when the subject matter Description of is defined by a statute, the descriptive words contained in matters dethe act should be also used in the indictment; and that where the act uses several descriptive terms, one of which, being general, includes the more specific term, an indictment would be bad which used the more general instead of the more special description, (y) And an instance is given where an indictment under the statutes 14 Geo. 2. c. 6., and 15 Geo. 2. c. 34. for stealing a cow, was holden not to be sustained by the fact that the defendant stole a heifer; on the ground that as those statutes mention both heifer and cow, they must be considered as having used one term in contradistinction to the other in describing the several animals they were intended to protect. (2)

An indictment for stealing 107. in monies numbered is not suffi- Description of cient; some of the pieces of which that money consisted should money. be specified. Upon an indictment for breaking and entering a dwelling-house, and stealing therein 107. in monies numbered, and a pair of stockings, the prisoner was found guilty of stealing the 107. only; and upon the point being reserved, a majority of the Judges held the description to be insufficient and the judgment was arrested. (a)

It is said to have been formerly the practice, upon all indict- Description of ments for stealing notes or other written securities to set out the written secu

(u) Ante, 152.

(w) Rex v. Norton, East. T. 1823. MS. Bayley, J., and Russ. & Ry. 510. (x) Rex v. Nibbs and Yeams, Trin. T. 1824. MS. Bayley, J., and Ry. &

Mood. C. C. 25.

(y) Stark. Crim. Plead. 181.
(z) Cooke's case, 1 Leach 105.
(a) Rex v. Fry, East. T. 1822. MS.
Bayley, J., and Russ. & Ry. 482.

rities.

Johnson's case.

'Divers, to

wit, nine

bank-notes

for the pay

sums of mo

ney, amounting in the

whole to a certain sum of

money, to wit, the sum of 9%.

of lawful money, and of the value of

notes or other securities at full length; (b) but it has been long settled that they may be described in a general manner, and need not be set out verbatim. (c) But still the indictment must follow some of the descriptions of property as given in the statute; so that where a prisoner was charged with stealing "a certain note "commonly called a bank-note," of the value, &c. and convicted, an objection which was taken to this description of the note was referred to the Judges, who all held the indictment ill laid; as, in describing the property stolen to be a "note commonly called a "bank-note," it did not follow any of the descriptions of property in the statute, and in other respects seemed inaccurate. (d) The necessary description of a bank-note underwent considerable discussion in a late case of an indictment upon the embezzling act 39 Geo. 3. c. 85. (now repealed.) The indictment charged the prisoner with embezzling "divers, to wit, nine bank-notes for the pay"ment of divers sums of money, amounting in the whole to a cerment of divers❝tain sum of money, to wit, the sum of 94. of lawful money of Great "Britain, and of the value of 91. of like lawful money ;" and, upon error to reverse the judgment, it was objected that none of the cases had determined that such an indictment containing no description of any particular note whatever was sufficient: but the court held that this was a sufficient description. Lord Ellenborough, C. J. said, that he considered that after the statute had made bank-notes the subject of larceny, they might be described in the same manner as other things which have an intrinsic value, that is, by any description applicable to them as a chattel; that to describe them as bank-notes for the payment of money seemed to be a larger description than the statute strictly required; and that the indictment in question had set forth number, value, and species, (bank-note being the species, the value 9/., and the number nine,) and thereby complied with the strict and technical rule of law. Le Blanc, J. in delivering his judgment, said, "Where a specific thing is made the subject of larceny, it is only necessary to de"scribe it as such specific thing, it being a species of thing that "is the subject of larceny. For instance, it is not necessary, in charging a larceny of sheep, to describe it either as a wether, ewe, or lamb, yet it cannot be doubted, if such an argument "could prevail, that it would be of advantage to the prisoner that "it should be described more particularly, because if it were, and "the prosecutor, in such case, should fail to prove it to be of that "particular description, the prisoner would thereupon be entitled "to an acquittal. So also it may be said of bank-notes; it is "not necessary to describe a bank-note particularly, as a bank"note for the payment of 17., 51., or 201., because for whatsoever "sum it may be payable it is still a bank-note. In like manner, "in an indictment for stealing an handkerchief, it is not neces66 sary to describe it as a handkerchief of any specific make or ma"terials, as that it is of silk, linen, or any other particular quality.

94. of like law ful money:" held to be a

sufficient de

scription of bank-notes, in an indictment

on the embezzling act 39 Geo. 3. c. 85.

[ocr errors]

(b) 3 M. & S. 541.

(c) 2 East. P. C. c. 16. s. 159. p. 777. Milne's case, 2 East. P. C. c. 16. s. 37. p. 602. Johnson's case, 2 Leach 1103 note (a). Stark. Crim. Plead. 429,

note (1).

(d) Craven's case, Lancaster Sum. Ass. 1901. Mich. T. 1801. 2 East. P. C. c. 16. s. 37. p. 601, 602. Russ. & Ry. 14.

« PreviousContinue »