CHAPTER XLII. LARCENY, COMPOUND.1 $ 771. Introduction. 780. From the Person. § 771. How the Chapter divided. We shall consider, I. The General Doctrine ; II. Larcenies by Particular Classes of Persons ; III. Larcenies from Particular Places ; IV. Larcenies from the Person. I. The General Doctrine. $ 772. In General, of Indictment. — A compound larceny is a larceny aggravated by some attendant fact, which, in law, increases its enormity. Therefore the indictment for it consists of the ordinary allegations in simple larceny enlarged by the averment of the special fact. Still, § 773. Entirely on Statute (Robbing Mail). Sometimes a statute is in terms which are construed to create a new larceny throughout, similar to the compound one. Then the averments throughout should simply follow the statute. Thus, in an Irish case, an indictment for robbing a mail-bag of letters was held good, though it omitted the common-law averment of asportation; for, the judges deemed, “the statute constituted a new species of offence, and did not refer certain acts to a known species of crime.” And this indictment covered entire the statutory words.4 | For the law of this title, see Crim. ed. 383, 397, 416, 422, 424, 433-441, 444Law, II. $ 892 et seq. And see Stat. 446, 457 ; Beery v. United States, 2 Col. Crimes, $ 413-429. Ter. 186; Rex v. Somerton, 7 B. & C. 2 Crim. Law, II. S 892, 893. 463. 3 See, for forms, 3 Chit. Crim. Law, 4 Rex v. Rossiter, Jebb, 50, 51. 984–988; Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 19th $ 774. Evidence. — The evidence consists merely of proving the larceny, as explained in a preceding chapter, and the special fact. Hence, For this Chapter. — Little remains for this chapter. It will barely compensate us to pass rapidly through its remaining sub-titles. II. Larcenies by Particular Classes of Person8. . § 775. By Clerk or Servant — (Indictment). — If the aggravation consists of the fact that the defendant was a clerk or servant of the owner of the goods stolen, — as, in England, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 46 (re-enacted in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 67), which made it punishable “if any clerk or servant shall steal any chattel, money, or valuable security, belonging to or in the possession or power of his master,” – it was an approved form to say, that the defendant, A, at a time and place, “was clerk to B, and that the said A, afterwards, and whilst he was such clerk to the said B, as aforesaid, on, &c. [or, on the day and year aforesaid], at, &c. (such and such goods, of the value of, &c. as in simple larceny], of and belonging to the said B, his master, then and there being found [or, in the possession and power of the said B, his master, then and there being], then and there feloniously did steal, take, and carry away.”] § 776. Evidence. The legal relation of clerk and master must be proved, together with the master's relation to the goods, required by the statute ; that is, his ownership, his possession, or his power over them. To this, the same proof of the larceny as in other cases should be added. $ 776 a. By Post-office Employees. — The like principles govern the indictment and proofs, against the various post-office employees, for larcenies and embezzlements, contrary to the statutes.* 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. ed. 4 United States v. Patterson, 6 Mc194. In the 19th ed. 383, this form is Lean, 466 ; United States v. Okie, 5 varied to suit the present English prac. Blatch. 616; United States v. Laws, 2 tice. And see Rex v. Somerton, 7 B. & Lowell, 115; United States v. Jenther, C. 463. 13 Blatch. 335; United States v. Taylor, 2 Ante, $ 841; Crim. Law, II. § 332- 1 Hughes, 514; United States v. Winter, 351; Stat. Crimes, § 271; Rex v. Hay- 13 Blatch. 333; United States v. Lancasdon, 7 Car. & P. 445; Quarman v. Bur- ter, 2 McLean, 431 ; Farnum v. United dett, 6 M. & W. 499. States, 1 Col. Ter. 309; United States, v. 8 Rex v. Sullens, 1 Moody, 129; Rex Clark, Crabbe, 584 ; Goodwin's Case, 1 v. Murray, 1 Moody, 276. Lewin, 100. III. Larcenies from Particular Places. § 777. Breaking into Church and Stealing. - In England, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, § 10 (re-enacted in 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 50), it was punishable specially to “ break and enter any church or chapel, and steal therein any chattel ;” and an approved form of the indictment was, that, at a time and place, the defendant " the church of the said parish [or, a certain chapel], there situate, feloniously did break and enter, and then and there, in the said church, one silver cup of the value of, &c., of the chattels of the parishioners of the said parish, in the said church then and there being found, then and there feloniously and sacrilegiously did steal, take, and carry away." I $ 778. Larceny from Dwelling-house. The indictment for larceny from a dwelling-house is similar to the above ; the allegation of a breaking and entering being required or not, according to the terms of the statute. The ownership of the dwellinghouse, as well as of the goods, must be averred, and proved as laid ; but if, in the former, there is a variance between allegation and proof, a conviction for the simple larceny will be good.3 "Put in Fear." — If the statutory offence consists, in part, of “ putting persons in the house in fear, the allegation must further show that the defendant did this. § 779. From “ Building." Where the words of the statute were “in any building," it was held inadequate to say, in allegation, " in the refreshment saloon of," &c., not adding that this refreshment saloon was a “building." On conviction, therefore, the sentence was only for simple larceny. Also, Words of Statute. The indictment must adequately cover the statutory terms.6 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 10th Lond. 5 Commonwealth v. Mahar, 8 Gray, ed. 236. 469. For an adequate form, see Com? Berry v. The State, 10 Ga. 511; monwealth v. Smith, 111 Mass. 429. And Campbell v. Reg. 11 Q. B. 799, 800; see Inman v. The State, 54 Ga. 219; Commonwealth v. Curtis, 11 Pick. 134; Middleton v. The State, 53 Ga. 248; Irvin Hill v. The State, 41 Texas, 157. v. The State, 37 Texas, 412. 8 Rex v. Woodward, 1 Leach, 4th ed. * Reg. v. Smith, 2 Moody & R. 115. 253, note; Rex v. White, 1 Leach, 4th And see Callahan v. The State, 41 Texas, ed. 252. 43. 4 Rex v. Etherington, 2 Leach, 4th ed. 671, 2 East P. C. 635. IV. Larcenies from the Person. § 780. Indictment. It is the common and approved form merely to introduce among the allegations of a simple larceny the words “from the person ;” as, after mentioning the goods and their values, to proceed: “ from the person of the said B, feloniously did take, steal, and carry away.”ı Evidence. Some questions of evidence and variance have arisen, but they present nothing which is not obvious.? 1 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. 13th ed. 356; ? Reg. v. Wilkins, 10 Cox C. C. 363; Schantz v. The State, 17 Wis. 251; Peo King v. The State, 54 Ga. 184; People ple v. Fallon, 6 Parker C. C. 256 ; Fallon v. Morrigan, 29 Mich. 4; De Gaultie v. v. People, 2 Abb. Ap. 83. The State, 31 Texas, 32. For LEWDNESS, see BawDY-HOUSE ; EXPOSURE OF Person, &c. And see vari ous titles in Stat. Crimes. 369 VOL. II. CHAPTER XLIII. LIBEL AND SLANDER.1 $ 781, 782. Introduction. 783–794. Indictment generally and for libelling Individuals. $ 781. Compared with Civil Suit. — There are analogies between the civil and criminal suits for libel, helpful in the latter. Some of them will be suggested, as we proceed, in references to civil cases; others will occur to the reader. $ 782. How the Chapter divided. - We shall consider, I. The Indictment generally and as to Writings libelling Individuals ; II. The Indictment specially as to other Forms of Libel; III. The Evidence ; IV. Questions of Practice; V. Oral Words. I. The Indictment generally and as to Writings libelling Indi viduals. § 783. Form of Indictment. Indictment. - Criminal prosecutions for libel were more resorted to in former times, when passion and prejudice influenced even the allegations of the indictment, than now. Therefore the precedents for it, appearing in our books, are not in general modern ; and they contain more or less that is alike needless and to good taste offensive. Chitty has a form declaring that the defendant made the publication “not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved by the instigation of the devil;"2 and most of our precedents aver, that he did it “with force and arms,” – words not only useless, but ridicu a 3 8 Vol. I. § 602; Rex v. Burke, 7 T. R. 4. 1 For the law of this title, see Crim. Law, II. $ 905. 2 8 Chit. Crim. Law, 878. As to which, see Vol. I. $ 501. |