See RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
ENGINE-Damaging
See MALICIOUS INJURY. 3.
FALSE PRETENCES-continued.
Friendly society-Rules in restraint of trade-Held, that the statement that the chain was
[230 15-carat gold, not being mere exaggerated praise,
nor relating to a mere matter of opinion, but a
statement as to a specific fact within the know-
tence to sustain an indictment for obtaining money
ledge of the prisoner, was a sufficient false pre-
under false pretences.-Reg. v. Bryan (Dears. & B.
Cr. C. 265) distinguished. THE QUEEN v. ARD-
EVIDENCE-Confession-Admissibility 96, 356
See CONFESSION. 1, 2.
Concealment of birth
See CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH.
Discrediting witness
See DISCREDITING WITNESS.
Dying declaration - No present hope of
187
See DYING DECLARATION.
Election commissioners-Perjury
See STATEMENT BEFORE ELECTION COM-
301
3. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 88-Temporary
use of Chattel.] Section 88 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96,
enacts that "whosoever shall, by any false pre-
tence, obtain from any other person any chattel,
money, or valuable security, with intent to de-
fraud, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. . ." :—
Held, that "obtain " does not mean obtain the loan
of, but obtain the property in, any chattel, &c., and
that to constitute an obtaining by false pretences,
it is essential that there should be an intention to
deprive the owner wholly of the property in the
Examinations in bankruptcy-Admissibility chattel, and, consequently, that obtaining by false
in criminal case
See BANKRUPT.
Exposure of infant
See ABANDONMENT OF INFANT.
Notice to produce
4. Remoteness.] A conviction for obtain-
ing a chattel by false pretences is good, although
the chattel is not in existence at the time the
pretence is made, provided the subsequent delivery
of the chattel is directly connected with the false
pretence. Whether or not there is such a direct
connection is a question for a jury. THE QUEEN
v. MARTIN
Master and servant-Authority
See LARCENY. 5, 6.
334 FATHER-Abduction-Possession
EVIDENCE HEARD OUT OF COURT-Mistrial 378
See ABANDONMENT OF INFANT. 1.
FELONY-Soliciting and inciting to commit-Ac-
cessory-24 & 25 Vict. c. 94, s. 2.] The offence of
soliciting and inciting a man to commit a felony
is, where no such felony is actually committed, a
misdemeanour only, and not a felony under the
24 & 25 Vict. c. 94, s. 2, which only applies to
cases where a felony is committed as the result of
the counselling and procuring therein mentioned.
THE QUEEN V. GREGORY
See LARCENY. 1, 2.
FORGERY " Acquittance or Receipt for Money"
--24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 23.] Section 23 of 24 &
25 Vict. c. 98, enacts that "whosoever shall forge
any acquittance or receipt for money.
shall be guilty of felony."-A. was secretary of a
friendly society which had branches in various
towns. Any member, who had paid all his dues,
on going from one of these towns to another, was
entitled to a document called a "clearance," which
admitted him to membership at any place where
a branch of the society existed. The qualifications
for membership were the payment of an entrance
fee, a time of probation, and certain general pay-
ments which were made to the secretary, whose
duty it was at once to hand them over to the
treasurer. A clearance had to be signed by the
secretary and by two other officers of the society.
Neither of these two officers received or was re-
sponsible for any of these payments, nor were their
signatures to a clearance understood as importing
that any money had been received by them. C.,
a member of the society, was entitled to a clear-
ance, having paid A. all his dues, but the money
he had so paid had not been accounted for by A.
to the treasurer. A. sent C. a clearance to which
he had forged the names of the two officers whose
signatures besides his own were necessary for the
validity of the clearance. The clearance certified
that the bearer C. was a member of the branch of
the society granting it, and had paid all dues and
demands, and it then authorized any other branch
to receive C. as a clearance member :-Held, that
the clearance was not an 66
acquittance or receipt
for money within s. 23 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98.
THE QUEEN v. FRENCH
217 GAS-Larceny-Continuous taking
Antedated Deed-" Forge "-24 & 25
See LARCENY. 3.
Vict. c. 98, s. 20.] It is forgery to make a deed GOODS IN BUILDING-Setting fire to 307
fraudulently with a false date, when the date is a
material part of the deed, although the deed is in
fact made and executed by and between the per- HABITUAL CRIMINALS ACT (32 & 33 Vict. c. 99),
sons by and between whom it purports to be made
and executed. THE QUEEN v. RITSON
200
Bank-notes-Scotch Bank-24 & 25
Vict. c. 98, 88. 16, 55.] The 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98,
s. 16, extends to the engraving in England with-
out authority of notes purporting to be notes of a
banking company carrying on business in Scotland
only; notwithstanding that s. 55 enacts that
nothing in the Act contained shall extend to
Scotland. THE QUEEN v. BRACKENRIDGE AND
KING
133
4. "Warrant," "Authority," "Request,"
"for the Payment of Money"-Receipt-24 & 25
Vict. c. 98, 8. 24.] Section 24 of 24 & 25 Vict.
c. 98, enacts that "whosoever, with intent to
defraud, shall make . . any warrant, order, au-
thority, or request for the payment of money
for, in the name, or on the account, of any other
person, without lawful authority or excuse,
shall be guilty of felony :"-Held, that a docu-
ment, in form a mere receipt given by a depositor
to a building society that received money on de-
posit, might properly be described in an indict-
ment as a 66
warrant," "authority," or "request"
"for the payment of money," if, by the custom
of the society, such receipts were in fact treated
as warrants, authorities, and requests for the pay-
ment of money; and, therefore, that a person
forging such a receipt might be properly con-
victed under s. 24 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, upon an
indictment so describing the document as a
rant," "authority," or "request," "for the pay-
ment of money." THE QUEEN v. Kay
24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 23-" Under-
taking."] The prisoner, being pressed for pay-
INDECENT ASSAULT-Evidence-Relevance 334 | JURISDICTION-Justices-Apprentice
See CONTRADICTION OF WITNESS.
INDECENTLY EXPOSING THE PERSON
See PREVIOUS CONVICTION. 1, 2.
Stealing valuable securities
See LARCENY. 12.
Uncertainty-Surplusage
See DEPOSITION BEFORE JUSTICE.
Unlawful wounding-Assault
See UNLAWFUL WOUNDING. 1.
See PERJURY. 5.
Justices-Bastardy
See PERJURY. 3, 4.
Justices-Larceny
Withdrawal of evidence from
See COMPETENCE OF WITNESS. 3.
LARCENY—Animals feræ Naturæ-Killing and
61 Removal after an Interval of Time-Continuous
Act.] Poachers, of whom the prisoner was one,
225 wrongfully killed a number of rabbits upon land
belonging to the Crown. They placed the rabbits
194 in a ditch upon the same land, some of the rabbits
in bags, and some strapped together. They had
no intention to abandon the wrongful possession
of the rabbits which they had acquired by taking
them, but placed them in the ditch as a place of
deposit till they could conveniently remove them.
About three hours afterwards the prisoner came
back, and began to remove the rabbits :-Held,
that the taking of the rabbits and the removal of
them were one continuous act, and that the re-
INFLICTING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM-Prac-moval was therefore not larceny. THE QUEEN V.
INFAMOUS CRIME-Threat to accuse of
See THREAT TO ACCUSE OF
CRIME.
INFANT-Abandonment
See ABANDONMENT OF INFANT. 1, 2.
2. Animals feræ Naturæ Young Par-
tridges reared under a common Hen.] Partridges,
hatched and reared by a common hen, while they
remain with her, and from their inability to
escape are practically under the dominion and in
the power of the owner of the hen, may be the
subject of larceny, though the hen is not con-
fined in a coop or otherwise, but allowed to wander
with her brood about the premises of her owner.
Reg. v. Cory (10 Cox, Cr. C. 23) followed. THE
QUEEN v. SHICKLE
158
Continuous Taking- Abstraction of
Gas.] A. stole gas for the use of a manufactory by
means of a pipe which drew off the gas from the
JOINT INDICTMENT-Receiving stolen goods 31 main without allowing it to pass through the
meter. The gas from this pipe was burnt every
day, and turned off at night. The pipe was
never closed at its junction with the main, and
consequently always remained full of gas:-Held,
that as the pipe always remained full, there was,
in fact, a continuous taking of the gas, and not a
series of separate takings; but held, further, that,
even if the pipe had not been thus kept full, the
taking would have been continuous, as it was sub-
stantially all one transaction. THE QUEEN v.
FIRTH
Constructive Possession-Jurisdiction
-24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 114.] The prisoner stole
a watch at Liverpool, and sent it by railway to a
confederate in London:-Held, that the con-
structive possession still remained in the pri-
soner, and that he was triable at the Middlesex
Sessions. THE QUEEN v. ROGERS
136
5. False Pretences-Master and Servant
-Distinction between general and limited Autho-
rity of Servant.] Where a servant is entrusted
with his master's property with a general autho-
rity to act for his master in his business, and is
induced by fraud to part with his master's pro-
perty, the person who is guilty of the fraud and
so obtains the property, is guilty of obtaining it
by false pretences, and not of larceny, because to
constitute larceny there must be a taking against
the will of the owner, or of the owner's servant
duly authorized to act generally for the owner.-
But where a servant has no such general autho-
rity from his master, but is merely entrusted with
the possession of his goods for a special purpose,
and is tricked out of that possession by fraud,
the person who is guilty of the fraud and so
obtains the property, is guilty of larceny, because
the servant has no authority to part with the pro-
perty in the goods except to fulfil the special
purpose for which they were entrusted to him.-
The cashier of a bank is a servant having a
general authority to conduct the business of the
bank, and to part with its property on the pre-
sentation of a genuine order from a customer; and
if he is deceived by a forged order, and parts
with the money of the bank, he parts, intending
so to do, with the property in the money, and
the person knowingly presenting such forged
order is guilty of obtaining the money by false
pretences, and not of larceny. THE QUEEN v.
False Pretences-Master and Servant
-Misappropriation of Money by Servant.] A
servant, whose duty it was to pay his master's
workmen, and for this purpose to obtain the
necessary money from his master's cashier, fraudu-
lently represented to the cashier that the wages
due to one of the workmen were larger than they
really were, and so obtained from him a larger
sum than was in fact necessary to pay the work-
men. He did this intending at the time to ap-
propriate the balance to his own use. Out of the
sum so received he paid the workmen the wages
really due to them, and appropriated the balance
to his own use:-Held, that whether the obtain-
ing of the money in the first instance was larceny
or obtaining money by false pretences, the money
while it remained in the prisoner's custody was
the property and in the possession of the master,
and therefore the misappropriation of it by the
servant was larceny. THE QUEEN v. COOKE 295
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.hu/books/content?id=zeUwAAAAIAAJ&hl=hu&output=html_text&pg=PA392&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:UOM39015065273057&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U02rljnOtlH6qLDiQTOFezBER8KIQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=96,1265,455,163)
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.hu/books/content?id=zeUwAAAAIAAJ&hl=hu&output=html_text&pg=PA392&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:UOM39015065273057&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U02rljnOtlH6qLDiQTOFezBER8KIQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=515,135,424,104)
Lost Property.] The prisoner found a
sovereign on a highway, believing at the time that
it had been accidentally lost; but, nevertheless,
with a knowledge that he was doing wrong, he at
once determined to appropriate it, notwithstanding
it should afterwards become known to him who
the owner was. There was no evidence to shew
that the prisoner believed he could ascertain who
the true owner was at the time he found the
sovereign:-Held, on the authority of Reg. v.
Thurborn (1 Den. Cr. C. 387; 18 L. J. (M.C.) 140),
that the prisoner was not guilty of larceny. THE
QUEEN v. GLYDE
9. Mock Auction-" Taking"-Payment
made under Fear.] A. acted as auctioneer at a
mock auction. He knocked down some cloth for
268. to B., who had not bid for it, as A. knew. B.
refused to take the cloth or to pay for it; A. re-
fused to allow her to leave the room unless she
paid. Ultimately, she paid the 268. to A., and
took the cloth. She paid the 268. because she was
afraid. A. was indicted for, and convicted of,
feloniously stealing these 268.-Held, that the
conviction was right, because if the force used to
B. made the taking a robbery, larceny was in-
cluded in that crime; if the force was not suf-
ficient to constitute a robbery, the taking of the
money nevertheless amounted to larceny, as B.
paid the money to A. against her will, and because
she was afraid.-Held, further, that, under the
circumstances, it was not necessary that the jury
should be asked whether B. paid the money
against her will, as from the evidence stated in
the case it was clear that there could have been
no doubt in the minds of the jury that the money
205
was so paid. THE QUEEN v. MCGRATH
10. Possession obtained by Fraud.] The
prisoner with another man went into the shop of
the prosecutrix and asked for a pennyworth of
sweetmeats, for which he put down a florin. The
prosecutrix put it into the money-drawer, and put
down one shilling and sixpence in silver and five-
pence in copper in change, which the prisoner took
up. The other man said, "you need not have
changed," and threw down a penny, which the
prisoner took up; and the latter then put down a
sixpence in silver and sixpence in copper on the
counter, saying, "Here, mistress, give me a shil-
ling for this.' The prosecutrix took a shilling
out of the money-drawer and put it on the counter,
when the prisoner said to her, "You may as well
give me the two-shilling-piece and take it all."
The prosecutrix took from the money-drawer the
florin she had received from the prisoner, and put
that on the counter, expecting she was to receive
two shillings of the prisoner's money in exchange
for it. The prisoner took up the florin; and the
prosecutrix took up the silver sixpence and the
sixpence in copper put down by the prisoner, and
also the shilling put down by herself, and was
putting them into the money-drawer, when she
saw she had only got one shilling's worth of the
prisoner's money; but at that moment the prisoner's
companion drew away her attention, and, before
she could speak, the prisoner pushed his com-
panion by the shoulder, and both went out of the
shop:-Held, that the property in the florin had
not passed to the prisoner, and that he was rightly
convicted of larceny. THE QUEEN v. MCKALE 125
11. Process of Court-Taking with frau-
dulent Purpose-24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, 8. 30.] The
prisoner's goods having been scized under war-
rants of execution of a county court, and being
in possession of the bailiff, the prisoner, with in-
tent to deprive the bailiff, as he supposed, of his
authority, and so defeat the execution, forcibly
took the warrants from him:- Held, that the
prisoner was not guilty of larceny, but that he
was guilty of taking the warrants for a fraudu-
lent purpose within the meaning of 24 & 25 Vict.
c. 96, s. 30. THE QUEEN V. THOMAS BAILEY 347
12. Valuable Security-24 & 25 Vict. c. 96,
88. 1, 27-Indictment.] An indictment under 24
& 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 27, for stealing a valuable
security, must particularize the kind of valuable
security stolen; and any material variance be-
tween the description in the indictment and the
evidence, if not amended, will be fatal. THE
QUEEN v. LOWRIE
Partner receiving stolen goods
See RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS. 4.
LAWFUL AUTHORITY OR EXCUSE
See COINING.
LOCAL MARINE BOARD-Jurisdiction
See PERJURY. 6.
LOST PROPERTY-Larceny
See LARCENY. 8.
MALICIOUS INJURY-continued.
3. Damaging Engine-24 & 25 Vict. c. 97,
8. 15.] The prisoner plugged up the feed-pipe of
a steam engine, and displaced other parts of the
engine in such a way as rendered it temporarily
useless, and would have caused an explosion, if
the obstruction had not been discovered, and,
with some labour, removed :-Held, that he was
guilty of damaging the engine with intent to
render it useless, within the meaning of the 24
& 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 15. THE QUEEN v. WILLIAM
FISHER -
4. Setting Fire to Goods in a Building-
24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 7.] By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97,
s. 7, whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously
set fire to any matter or thing being in, against,
or under any building, under such circumstances
that if the building were thereby set fire to the
offence would amount to felony, is guilty of felony.
The prisoner, from ill-will and malice against a
person lodging in a house, made a pile of her
goods on the stone floor of the kitchen, and set
tire to them, under such circumstances that the
house would almost certainly have been burned
had not the police extinguished the fire before
the house was actually ignited. The judge at
the trial told the jury, that if the house had
caught fire from the burning goods, the question
whether the offence would have amounted to
284 felony would have depended upon whether such a
setting fire to the house would have been mali-
cious and with intent to injure, so as to bring the
case within 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 3; and that,
though the prisoner's object was only to destroy
the goods, and injure the owner of them, and not
to destroy the house, or injure the landlord, yet
if they thought he was aware that what he was
doing would probably set the house on fire, and so
necessarily injure the owner, and was at best
reckless whether it did so or not, they ought to
find that if the building had caught fire from the
setting fire to the goods, the offence would have
been felony, otherwise not. The jury found that
the prisoner was guilty, but not so that if the
house had caught fire the setting fire to the house
would have been wilful and malicious:-Held,
that upon
the finding of the jury the prisoner was
not guilty of felony. THE QUEEN v. CHILD 307
LUNATIC-8 & 9 Vict. c. 100, 88. 90, 114.] Im-
becility and loss of mental power, whether arising
from natural decay or from paralysis, softening of
the brain or other natural cause, and although
unaccompanied by frenzy or delusion of any kind,
constitute unsoundness of mind amounting to
lunacy within the meaning of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100.
THE QUEEN v. SHAW
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.hu/books/content?id=zeUwAAAAIAAJ&hl=hu&output=html_text&pg=PA393&img=1&zoom=3&q=editions:UOM39015065273057&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U1xFUBOABBIw8ha_zSushv7jHrTiQ&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=68,1006,381,25)
See UNLAWFUL WOUNDING. 2.
MALICIOUS INJURY-Arson-24 & 25 Vict. c. 97,
8. 6-Building-Unfinished House.] A building
in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 6, is not necessarily a
finished structure. An unfinished house, of
which the walls were built and finished, the roof
on and finished, a considerable part of the flooring
laid, and the internal walls and ceilings prepared
ready for plastering, held, to be a building within
the meaning of the section. THE QUEEN v. MAN-
NING AND ROGERS
338
2. Arson-Indictment-Immaterial Aver-
ment-Statement of Ownership-24 & 25 Vict. c.
97, 88. 3, 60.] Two prisoners were indicted under
24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 3, for feloniously setting
fire to a shop "of and belonging to" one of the
prisoners-Held, that the averment of property
in the prisoner was an immaterial averment, which
need not be proved; and that an intent to injure
another person as owner might be proved in sup-
port of the indictment. THE QUEEN v. JOSEPH
NEWBOULT AND BENJAMIN HOLDSWORTH 344
|