examining the witnesses who come to prove their identity, and that the jury may be satisfied of the sufficiency of the proof.

The goods stolen may be laid in the indictment to be the property, either of the actual owner, although he may never have been in possession of them, R. v. Remnant, R. & Ry. 136, or of a bailee in whose possession they were at the time they were stolen; the one has the actual property, the other a special property, in them. See 1 Arch. P. A. 283. But where the owner of a house let a room in it furnished to a lodger, and some of the furniture was stolen by a third party: the judges held that the furniture stolen should have been laid to be the property of the lodger, and not of the owner of the house; for the owner was not in possession, nor entitled to the possession of it, and could not have maintained trespass. R. v. John Belstead, R. & R. 411. S. P. R. v. George Brunswick, Ry. & M. 26. But where the person in whose possession they are at the time they are stolen, is merely a servant of the owner, in that case the goods must be laid as the property of the owner. 2 East, P. C. 652. If the goods be the property of two or more persons, as partners, joint tenants, parceners, or tenants in common, it is sufficient in the indictment to state them to be the property of any one of them" and another" or "others," as the case may be ; 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 14; and it should seem that the evidence need not be more particular. If the goods stolen had been provided for the use of the poor of any parish, &c., to be used in the workhouse or poorhouse, or by the master or mistress thereof, or the workmen or servants therein, they may be described as the property of the overseers" for the time being," without specifying their names; 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 16; and where goods were laid as the property of" the overseers of the poor for the time being" of the parish of K., the judges held it to be sufficient, the words "for the time being" sufficiently importing that the goods were the property of those who were overseers at the time of the theft. R. v. Went, R. & Ry. 359. So, if the larceny be of goods provided at the expense of any county, riding or division, it will be sufficient to describe them as the property of the inhabitants of such county, &c., without specifying the names of any; 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 15; and the evidence may be according. So, materials, tools, &c., for making or repairing highways, may be described as belonging to the surveyors of the highways of the parish, &c. for the time being, without specifying their names. 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 16. So, property under turnpike trusts, materials, tools, &c., for making or repairing a turnpike road, may be described as belonging to the trustees or commissioners of such road, without specifying their names. 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 17. And lastly, property under the commissioners of sewers may be described as belonging to the commissioners of sewers within or under whose view, cognizance or management, it shall

be, without specifying their names. 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 18. If the name of the prosecutor be mis-spelt, it will be immaterial. R. v. Foster, R. & Ry. 412. If he be called by a name by which he is usually known, it will be sufficient, R. v. Berriman, 5 Car. & P. 601. Auon. 6 Car. & P. 408, although it be not his real name. R. v. Norton, R. & Ry. 510. and see I Arch. P. A.

285.

Where the goods consist of several articles, they must have been all stolen at the same time, or at times so near to each other that the several takings may appear to be parts of the same continuing transaction, otherwise each larceny must be made the subject of a distinct indictment. If they be comprised in one indictment, whether in the same or in different counts, and it appear at the trial that the goods were stolen at several distinct times, the Court will put the prosecutor to his election for which act of larceny he will prosecute, and will oblige him to confine his evidence to that. 1 Arch. P. A. 282. and see R. v. Smith & Jefferies, ld. 286. and ante, p. 125. But the Court will not thus put the prosecutor to his election, merely because the goods might have been, and probably were, stolen at different times, if, from any thing appearing in the case, it be not impossible that they might all have been stolen at one time. R. v. Dunn & Smith, Ry. & M. 146. 1 Arch. P. A. 435.

5. As to the county, &c., within which the larceny must be proved to have been committed: The offence must be proved to have been committed in the county or place stated as venue in the margin of the indictment. It is not however necessary to prove it to have been committed within the parish or place alleged in the body of the indictment as special venue; nor indeed is it now necessary to state any such parish or place, the county or other extent of jurisdiction being sufficient. See stat. 6 G. 4, c. 50, s. 13. and 1 Arch. P. A. 180, 181. If the offence be committed on the boundaries of two or more counties, or within five hundred yards of such boundaries, it may be tried in either county, in the same manner as if it had been actually committed therein; 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 12; this however does not extend to trials in limited jurisdictions, but to trials in counties only. R. v. Welsh, R. & M. 175. 1 Arch. P. A. 205. Or if committed on a person, or with respect to property, in or upon a coach, waggon, or other carriage, or on board a vessel, &c., on a navigable river, canal or inland navigation, the offence may be tried in any county through which the carriage or vessel may have passed in its journey or voyage, in the same manner as if it had been actually committed in such county. 7 G. 4, c. 64, s. 13. At common law, also, if a man stole goods in one county, and carried them into another, he might be indicted and tried in either; and now, by stat. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 76, if any per

son, having stolen or otherwise feloniously taken any chattel, money or valuable security, or other property whatsoever, in any one part of the United Kingdom, shall afterwards have the same property in his possession in any other part of the United Kingdom, he may be dealt with, indicted, tried and punished for larceny or theft in that part of the United Kingdom where he shall have such property, in the same manner as if he had actually stolen or taken it in that part. See R. v. Prowes, Ry. & M. 349. Where a man stole à brass furnace in Radnorshire, broke it in pieces there, and then brought the pieces of brass into the county of Hereford: Hullock, B. held that he could not be indicted in Hereford for stealing the fur. ace there, it never having in fact been there. R. v. Halloway, 1 Cur. & P. 127. But no distance of time between the stealing in one county, and carrying the property in another, will prevent the party from being indicted in the latter county; and therefore, where the property was stolen by the prisoner in Yorkshire in November 1823, and brought by him into Durham in March 1824, the judges held that he might be indicted for the larceny in Durham. R. v. Parkin, Ry. & M. 45. Where the prisoners stole two horses at different times, and at different places in Somersetshire, but brought both at the same time into Wilts, and had them there together in their possession: Littledale, J. held that this did not warrant the including both larcenies in one indictment; and he therefore put the prosecutor to his election as to which horse he would prosecute. R. v. Smith and Jefferies, Ry. & M. N. P. C. 295.

2. Indictment for Larceny of Bills of Exchange, &c.

Same as the form ante, p. 156, to the words] in the county aforesaid, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away one bill of exchange, [or "promissory note," &c. describing thus shortly the security stolen,] for the payment of the sum of fifty pounds, and of the value of fifty pounds, and two promissory notes for the payment of five pounds each, and of the value of five pounds each, then and there being found; the said bill of exchange and the said several promissory notes, at the time of the committing of the felony aforesaid, being the property of C. D., and the said several sums of money payable and secured by and upon the said bill of exchange and the said several promissory notes respectively being then and there due and unsatisfied to the said C. D., the proprietor thereof: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lord the King, his crown and dignity. See 1 Arch. P. A. 288.

Felony, same punishment as for stealing goods of the same value. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 5. See ante, p. 156. This section of the Act

I

extends not only to bills and notes, but to deeds, bonds, orders for payment of money or for the delivery or transfer of goods, &c.

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove: 1. A larceny of the bill and notes, as directed ante, p. 156. Upon an indictment for stealing a certain warrant for the payment of £22,000, and bank notes to the same amount, it appeared - that Sir Thomas Plomer, the prosecutor, had given a check upon his banker for £22,000 to Walsh, the prisoner, for the purpose of purchasing Exchequer bills for him to that amount; the prisoner received the amount of the check in bank notes, and absconded with them: the jury being of opinion that the prisoner, before he received the check, had formed the design of converting the money to be received for it to his own use, found him guilty but upon a reference of the case to the judges, they were of opinion that this was not a larceny ;- not of the check, because the prisoner had used no fraud or contrivance to induce the prosecutor to give it to him, and also because, being the pro. secutor's own check, and of no value in his hands, it could not be called his goods and chattels; nor was it a larceny of the notes obtained for the check, for the prosecutor never had possession of them but by the hands of the prisoner. R. v. Benjamin Walsh, R. & Ry. 215. See also R. v. Minter Hart, infra.

2. The bill and notes must appear to be such as is meant by the statute, and described in the indictment. Some country bank notes being paid by the agent in London, were sent by him to the country bankers, by whom they were to be reissued; on their way, they were stolen by the prisoner, and he was indicted for stealing the bank notes in the ordinary form, and also for stealing certain pieces of paper with certain valuable stamps upon them the judges seem to have been of opinion that this could not be considered a stealing of bank notes, inasmuch as it could not be deemed that the sums payable and secured thereby were due and unsatisfied to the prosecutors; but they held that the prisoner was rightly convicted of stealing the paper and stamps. R. v. Henry Clark, R. & Ry. 181. So, where the prisoner was indicted for receiving certain stamped pieces of paper, the goods and chattels of the prosecutor, knowing the same to have been stolen ; it appeared that the prosecutors were country bankers; that one of the partners had received a large parcel of their notes from their London agents, which had been paid in London, and he was taking them into the country, for the purpose of reissuing them, when they were stolen from him: the prisoner being convicted, the judges were of opinion that the notes were properly described in the indictment as the "goods and chattels" of the prosecutors; some of them doubted whether they could have

been considered as "valuable securities" within the statute. Vyse, Ry. & M. 218.

R. v.

But in another case, where it appeared that the prosecutor, in answer to an advertisement offering an advance of money upon loan, sent a letter to the address therein mentioned, stating his wish to borrow £5000, and the prisoner called upon him in consequence of it; the prisoner offered to obtain the loan for him, upon his acceptance of ten bills of exchange for £500 each, and he produced ten 6s. stamps, which the prosecutor accepted in blank, and which the prisoner took away with him, and afterwards had bills drawn upon them for £500 each by a person in concert with him, of the name of Clissold; he was afterwards indicted for this, as for a larceny of ten bills of exchange for £500 each, of ten pieces of paper each stamped with a 6s. stamp, and of ten pieces of paper with the words "Accepted, F. Dugdale Astley, payable at Messrs. Praed & Co., 189, Fleet Street, London," upon each: Littledale and Bosanquet, JJ. and Bolland B. held that the prisoner could not be convicted upon this evidence; when these acceptances were obtained by him, they were not bills of exchange, orders or securities for money, neither drawer's name, sum, nor date being upon them, and of course they were of no precise or definite value; nor could the prisoner be convicted on those counts, which described these acceptances as ten pieces of paper with stamps on them, &c., because the stamps never belonged to the prosecutor, but to the prisoner. R. v. Minter Hart, 6 Car. & P. 106.

To be a valuable security for money, within the meaning of the statute, the bill, &c. must be stamped, where by law such a security requires a stamp. And therefore where a person was indicted, upon another section of the same statute, for obtaining an order for the payment of £2 by false pretences, and the order appeared to be an unstamped check upon a banker, which, from the manner in which it was drawn, required a stamp, the judges held that it was not a valuable security within the meaning of the act. R. v. Yates, Ry. & M. 170.

3. Indictment for stealing Sheep or Cattle.

Same as in the form, ante, p. 156, to the words] in the county aforesaid, one ewe ["horse, mare, gelding, colt or filly, bull, cow, ox, heifer or calf, ram, ewe, sheep or lamb,"] of the price of two pounds, of the goods and chattels of one C. D. then and there being found, feloniously did steal, take, and drive away : against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lord the King, his crown and dig. nity. See 1 Arch. P. A. 350. If the indictment be for stealing a horse, &c. instead of "drive away," say "lead away."

Felony. The punishment was formerly death; 7 & 8 G. 4,