against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. (Other counts may be added, stating the particular process and progress of manufacture in which the goods were when stolen.)—Archbold. 48. Every one who, having been intrusted for the purpose of manufacture or for a special purpose connected with manufacture, or employed to make any felt or hat, or to prepare or work up any woollen, linen, fustian, cotton, iron, leather, fur, hemp, flax or silk, or any such materials mixed with one another, or having been so intrusted, as aforesaid, with any other article, materials, fabric or thing, or with any tools or apparatus for manufacturing the same, sells, pawns, purloins, secretes, embezzles, exchanges or otherwise fraudulently disposes of the same, or any part thereof, when the offence is not within the next preceding section, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and liable to imprisonment for any term less than twọ years.—32-33 V., c. 21, s. 64. 6-7 V., c. 40, s. 2, Imp. STEALING FROM SHIPS, WHARVES, ETC. 49. Every one who steals any goods or merchandise in any vessel, barge or boat of any description whatsoever, in any haven or in any port of entry or discharge, or upon any navigable river or canal, or in any creek or basin belonging to or communicating with any such haven, port, river or canal, or steals any goods or merchandise from any dock, wharf or quay, adjacent to any such haven, port, river, canal, creek or basin, is guilty of felony, and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment.-32-33 V., c. 21, 8, 65. 24-25 V., c. 96, s. 63, Imp. Indictment for stealing from a vessel on a navigable river ......... on ......... twenty pounds weight of indigo of the goods and merchandise of J. N., then being in a certain ship called the Rattler upon the navigable river Thames, in the said ship, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the form ......... Archbold. - Indictment for stealing from a dock.......... on twenty pounds weight of indigo of the goods and merchandise of J. M., then being in and upon a certain dock adjacent to a certain navigable river called the Thames, from the said dock, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the form ..........-Archbold. The value is immaterial, and need not be laid. If the prosecutor fails to prove any of the circumstances necessary to bring the case within the statute, but proves a larceny, the defendant may be convicted of the simple larceny.-Archbold. The construction of the repealed statute was generally confined to such goods and merchandise as are usually lodged in ships, or on wharves or quays; and therefore where Grimes was indicted on this statute for stealing a considerable sum of money out of a ship in port, though great part of it consisted in Portugal money, not made current by proclamation, but commonly current; it was ruled not to be within the statute.-R. v. Grimes, Fost. 79; R. v. Leigh, 1 Leach, 52. The same may be said of the present statute, by reason of the substitution of the words "goods and merchandise " for the words "chattel, money or valuable security" which are used in other parts of the Act."—Archbold. It would not be sufficient, in an indictment for stealing goods from any vessel on a certain navigable river to prove in evidence that the vessel was aground in a dock in a creek of the river, unless the indictment were amended.-R. v. Pike, 1 Leach, 317. The words of the statute are "in any vessel," and it is therefore immaterial whether the defendant succeeded in taking the goods from the ship or not, if there was a sufficient asportation in the ship to constitute larceny.—3 Burn, 254. The words of the statute are "from the dock," so that, upon an indictment for stealing from a dock, wharf, etc., a mere removal will not suffice; there must be an actual removal from the dock, etc.-Archbold, 409. A man cannot be guilty of this offence in his own ship.-R. v. Madox, R. & R. 92; but see R. v. Bowden, 2 Moo. C. C. 285. And now, sect. 4, ante, would apply to such a case, being larceny by a bailee. The luggage of a passenger going by steamer is within. the statute. The prisoners were indicted for stealing a portmanteau, two coats and various other articles, in a vessel, upon the navigable River Thames. The property in question was the luggage of a passenger going on board the Columbian steamer from London to Hamburg; and it was held that the object of the statute was to protect things on board a ship, and that the luggage of a passenger came within the general description of goods.-R. v. Wright, 7 C. & P. 159, Upon an indictment for any offence mentioned in this section, the jury may convict of an attempt to commit the same, under sec. 183 of the Procedure Act if the evidence warrants it.-2 Russ. 381. STEALING THINGS UNDER SEIZURE. 50. Every one who, whether pretending to be the owner or not, secretly or openly, and whether with or without force or violence, takes or carries away, or causes to be taken or carried away, without lawful authority, any property under lawful seizure and detention, steals such property, and is guilty of felony and liable to be punished accordingly.-43 V., c. 28, s. 66, part. 46 V., c. 17, s. 67. C. S. C., c. 23, s. 10. This is a new enactment. It is an extension of statutes relating to Indians and to timber seized by Crown officers. -At common law, a man may be guilty of larceny by taking his own goods in custodia legis.-2 Bishop. Cr. Proc. 749. STEALING OR EMBEZZLEMENT BY CLERKS OR SERVANTS OR PERSONS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE. 51. Every one who, being a clerk or servant, or being employed for the purpose or in the capacity of a clerk or servant, steals any chattel, money or valuable security belonging to or in the possession or power of his master or employer, is guilty of felony, and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment.-32-33 V., c. 21, s. 69. 24-25 V., c. 96, s. 67, Imp. As to what is a "valuable security," see, ante, sect. 2. See next section, and the cases there cited. .... Indictment.on ...... was clerk to J. N., and that the said J. S., whilst he was such clerk to the said J. N. as aforesaid, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, certain money to the amount of forty dollars, ten yards of linen cloth, and one hat, of and belonging to the said J. N., his master, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of Our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.-Archbold. If the defendant is not shown to be the clerk or servant of J. N. but a larceny is proved, he may be convicted of the larceny merely.-Archbold, 348; R. v. Jennings, Dears. & B. 447. It is not necessary by the statute that the goods stolen should be the property of the master; the words of the statute are, belonging to, or in the possession or power of the master. A second count stating the goods "then being in the possession and power" of the master may be added. If it appear that the money, etc., was received by the clerk for and on account of his master, and was not received into the possession of the master otherwise than by the actual possession of the clerk so as not to amount to larceny but to embezzlement, the defendant is nevertheless not entitled to be acquitted, but the jury may return as their verdict that the defendant was not guilty of larceny, but was guilty of embezzlement and thereupon he shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if he had been convicted on an indictment for embezzlement; but he cannot be afterwards prosecuted for embezzlement on the same facts. Sec. 195 Procedure Act. Upon the trial of any offence under this section, the jury, if the evidence warrants it, may convict of an attempt to commit the same, under sec. 183 of the Procedure Act. As to what is sufficient evidence of an attempt to steal, see R. v. Cheeseman, L. & C. 140. On an indictment for larceny as servants, the evidence showed that the complainant advanced money to the prisoners to buy rags, which they were to sell to the complainant at a certain price, their profit to consist in the difference between the rate they could buy the rags, and this fixed price. The prisoners consumed the money in drinks and bought no rags: Held, no larceny.-R. v. Charest, 9 L. N. 114. 52. Every one who, being a clerk or servant, or being employed for the purpose or in the capacity of a clerk or servant, fraudulently embezzles any chattel, money or valuable security, or any part thereof, delivered to or received or taken into possession by him, for or in the name or on the account of his master or employer, feloniously steals the same from his master or employer, although such chattel, money or security was not received into the possession of such master or employer, otherwise than by the actual possession of his clerk, servant or other person so employed, and is liable to fourteen years' imprisonment.-32-33 V., c. 21, s. 70. 24-25 V., c. 96, s. 68, Imp. See sec. 195 of Procedure Act, and R. v. De Banks, 15 Cox, 450. It was the prisoner's duty as a country traveller to collect moneys and remit them at once to his employers. On the 18th of April, he received money in county. On the 19th and 20th, he wrote to his employers not mentioning that he had received the money; on the 21st, by another letter, he gave them to understand that he had not received |