trust and that a general admission by the prisoner of a debt, due to the executors of D., would not supply the defect. (m) bad for not It appears to have been holden, that where an indictment against Indictment a bankrupt for concealing property did not, in stating the property, specifying sufsufficiently specify particular parts of it, though it might have suf- ficiently, parficiently specified others, and those specified might have been of ticular parts of the necessary value, such indictment was bad, on the ground that the property. the statement as to the parts not specified tended to embarrass the prisoner. And the decision appears to have proceeded upon the principle that where value is essential to constitute an offence, and the value is ascribed to many articles collectively, the offence must be made out as to every one of those articles; the grand jury having only ascribed that value to all those articles collectively. (n) Upon an indictment on the same repealed statute of 5 Geo. 2. charging the bankrupt with not submitting to be examined, it was mit to exadecided, that if a bankrupt surrendered to his commission, and at mination. the time of such surrender refused to answer particular questions concerning his property, but took the oath, and assigned, as his reason for not answering, that he intended to dispute the commission, the refusal to answer such question was not a capital offence within the statute. (0) Refusal to sub Upon an indictment on the same statute, qualified by 1 Geo. 4. Evidence. c.115. s. 1., against a bankrupt for concealing his effects, where the evidence was that the prisoner, on his last examination, stated that a book given in by him contained an account of all his effects, it was holden to be incumbent on the prosecutor to produce the book, or to account for its non-production. The book was a necessary part of the prosecutor's case, in order that it might have been seen whether that book mentioned the property. (p) It was agreed that a bankrupt's wife could not be examined on the part of the prosecution, on an indictment against the bankrupt for offences against that statute. (9) It seems that the production of the Gazette will be sufficient without proof of its being bought of the Gazette printer, or where it comes from: and possibly, where the prisoner has appeared to his commission, and been examined, averment of notice in the Gazette may not be necessary. (r) 1 P. Wms. 610., where the Lord Chan- (r) Forsyth's case, Russ. & Ry. 277. CHAPTER THE TWENTY-SIXTH. OF EMBEZZLEMENTS AND FRAUDS BY INSOLVENT DEBTORS. Wilfully omit- THE statute 7 Geo. 4. c. 57. s. 70. enacts "that in case any priting any thing "soner shall, with intent to defraud his or her creditors or crein schedule,} 66 ditor, wilfully and fraudulently omit in his or her schedule, so "sworn to as aforesaid, any effects or property whatsoever, or re"tain or except out of such schedule, as wearing apparel, bedding, "working tools and implements, or other necessaries, property of greater value than twenty pounds, every such person so offend❝ing, and any person aiding and assisting him to do the same, "shall, upon being thereof convicted by due course of law, be misdemeanor, adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and thereupon it shall and may be lawful for the court before whom such offender shall "have been so tried and convicted, to sentence such offender to "be imprisoned, and kept to hard labour for any period of time "not exceeding three years; and that in every indictment or in"formation against any person for such offence, it shall be sufment need set <ficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged on the what matters only indict out. "defendant, without setting forth the petition, or conveyance, or "assignment to the provisional assignee, appointment of assignee "or assignees, or any conveyance or assignment whatever, or "balance sheet, order for hearing, adjudication, order of discharge "or remand, or any warrant, rule, order or proceeding of or in "the said court, except so much of the schedule of such prisoner "as may be necessary for the purpose." CHAPTER THE TWENTY-SEVENTH. OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. RECEIVERS of stolen goods were at common law punishable only as for a misdemeanor, even after the thief had been convicted of felony in stealing them; (a) but by the provisions of several statutes, now repealed, such receivers were made accessories after the fact to the felony of the thief, in cases where the thief had been convicted, or was amenable to justice; and were made liable to be prosecuted for a misdemeanor in cases where the thief had not been convicted, and whether he was amenable to justice or not. And the late statute 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 29., passed for consolidating and amending the laws relative to larceny, contains several enactments upon the subject of receiving stolen goods. 66 The offence 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 29. s. 54. Receivers of stolen pro felony, the as accessories Section 54 of that statute enacts, "that if any person shall re"ceive any chattel, money, valuable security, or other property "whatsoever, the stealing or taking whereof shall amount to a felony, either at common law, or by virtue of this act, such perty: where person knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen or the original "taken, every such receiver shall be guilty of felony, and may be offence is "indicted and convicted either as an accessory after the fact, or receivers may "for a substantive felony; and in the latter' case, whether the be tried either "principal felon shall or shall not have been previously convicted, after the fact, or shall or shall not be amenable to justice; and every such or for a sub"receiver, howsoever convicted, shall be liable, at the discretion stantive " of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for any term not felony. exceeding fourteen years, nor less than seven years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years, and, if a male, "to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped (if the "court shall so think fit) in addition to such imprisonment: pro"vided always, that no person howsoever tried for receiving as "aforesaid, shall be liable to be prosecuted a second time for the "same offence." The 55th section enacts, "that if any person shall receive any "chattel, money, valuable security, or other property whatsoever, "the stealing, taking, obtaining, or converting whereof is made an "indictable misdemeanor by this act, such person knowing the "same to have been unlawfully stolen, taken, obtained, or con (a) Fost. 373. s. 55. Where the original misdemeanor, receivers may be prosecuted offence is a for a misde meanor. S. 56. Place of trial, &c. All receivers may be tried where the principal is triable, or where the pro "verted, every uch receiver shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, "and may be indicted and convicted thereof, whether the person "guilty of the principal misdemeanor shall or shall not have "been previously convicted thereof, or shall or shall not be "amenable to justice; and every such receiver shall, on convic"tion, be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years, or to be imprisoned "for any term not exceeding two years; and, if a male, to be 66 once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped (if the court "shall so think fit) in addition to such imprisonment." The 56th section enacts, "that if any person shall receive any "chattel, money, valuable security, or other property whatsoever, "knowing the same to have been feloniously or unlawfully stolen, "taken, obtained, or converted, every such person, whether charged as an accessory after the fact to the felony, or with a substantive "felony, or with a misdemeanor only, may be dealt with, indicted, perty is found"tried and punished in any county or place in which he shall have, or shall have had any such property in his possession, or in any county or place in which the party guilty of the principal felony or misdemeanor may by law be tried, in the same manner as such "receiver may be dealt with, indicted, tried, and punished in the county or place where he actually received such property." in their possession, as well as where the receiving takes place. S. 76. Trial of persons receiving in one part of the United Kingdom, property stolen, &c. in any other part. S. 60. Receivers of property where the original offence is punishable on summary conviction. 66 Section 76, after providing that nothing contained in the act shall extend to Scotland or Ireland except as follows, and then enacting as to trials in cases of larceny where the thief, having stolen, &c. property in one part of the kingdom, shall afterwards have the same property in his possession in any other part, further enacts, that if any person in any one part of the United Kingdom shall receive or have any chattel, money, valuable se"curity or other property whatsoever, which shall have been "stolen or otherwise feloniously taken in any other part of the "United Kingdom, such person knowing the said property to "have been stolen or otherwise feloniously taken, he may be "dealt with, indicted, tried, and punished for such offence in that 66 part of the United Kingdom where he shall so receive or have "the said property, in the same manner as if it had been originally "stolen or taken in that part." The 60th section provides for the punishment of receivers where the stealing, &c. is punishable on summary conviction, and enacts, "that where the stealing or taking of any property whatsoever is "by this act punishable on summary conviction, either for every "offence, or for the first or second offence only, or for the first "offence only, any person who shall receive any such property, 66 knowing the same to be unlawfully come by, shall, on convic"tion thereof before a justice of the peace, be liable, for every "first, second, or subsequent offence of receiving, to the same "forfeiture and punishment to which a person guilty of a first, second, or subsequent offence of stealing or taking such property "is by this act made liable." It should seem that the provisions of this statute will prevent a difficulty, which frequently occurred, in the prosecution of offenders, in consequence of the proof not corresponding with the charge in the indictment, either where the party, being charged as the thief, turned out to have been the receiver, or, being charged as receiver, appeared upon the evidence to have actually stolen the property. It is conceived that where, from the nature of the case, it shall appear to be advisable, a count charging the party accused as a receiver may be joined in the same indictment with a count charging him as the thief, and that he may be convicted upon such of the counts as shall be supported by the evidence. tinction be In some cases, upon the repealed statutes, the distinction be- As to the distween a receiver and an accomplice was the subject of attentive tween a reconsideration. ceiver and a thief. ting's case, Two prisoners, named Dyer and Disting, were indicted for principal stealing a quantity of barilla, the property of M. Hawker. Upon the evidence it appeared, that the barilla was on board a foreign Dyer and Disship at Plymouth, consigned to Hawker; that Hawker employed Dyer, who was the master of a large boat, for the purpose of bringing it on shore; and that Disting, together with several others, were employed as labourers in removing it to Hawker's warehouses, after it was landed. And the jury found that, while the barilla was in Dyer's boat, some of his servants, without his privity, consent, or participation, severed some of it from the rest where it was stowed, and removed it to another part of the boat, where they concealed it under some rope. But they also found, that Dyer afterwards assisted the other prisoner and the persons on board, who had before separated this part from the rest, in removing it from the boat, for the purpose of carrying it off. It was objected, for the prisoner Dyer, that his offence was not that of a principal, as laid in the indictment, but that of receiver or accessory after the fact. But the learned Judge, before whom the trial was had, was of opinion that, though for some purposes, as with respect to those concerned in the actual taking and separation, the offence would have been complete by the severance and removal of the barilla to another part of the boat, as being an asportation in point of law, yet, with respect to Dyer, who joined in the scheme before the barilla had been actually taken out of the boat, where it was properly deposited for the purpose of being landed, and who assisted in the act of carrying it off from thence, it was one continuing transaction, and could not be said to be completed till the removal of the commodity from such place of deposit; and that Dyer, having assisted in the act of carrying it off, was therefore guilty as principal. (b) well, O'Don Another case arose out of the same transaction. It appeared, Case of Atthat the rest of the barilla was lodged in M. Hawker's warehouse; that while it was there, several persons, employed as labourers or others. servants by Hawker, entered into a conspiracy to steal some of it; that accordingly, some of them, who had access to the warehouse, removed a parcel of it nearer to the door than it was before, in the course of the morning; and that about nine at night these persons, together with the prisoners Atwell and O'Donnell, who had in the mean time agreed to purchase it of the others, came to (b) Rex v. Dyer and Disting, Exeter Sum. Ass. 1801, cor. Graham, B., who conferred with the other Judge, (Le Blanc, J.) and afterwards said that he was fully satisfied that his opinion |