[ *638] *So an agister, who only takes in sheep to agist for another, may lay them to be his property, for he has the possession of them, and may maintain trespass against any who takes them away. Woodward's case, 2 East, P. C. 653; 1 Leach, 357, (n.)

A coachmaster, in whose coach-house a carriage is placed for safe custody, and who is answerable for it, may lay the property in himself. Taylor's case, 1 Leach, 356. So where a glass was stolen from a lady's chariot, which had been put up in a coach yard, at Chelsea, while the owner was at Ranelagh, the property was held to be properly laid in the master of the yard. Statham's case, cited 1 Leach, 357.

Goods at an inn, used by a guest, where stolen, may be laid to be either the property of the innkeeper or the guest. Todd's case, 2 East, P. C. 653.

Where the landlord of a public house had the care of a box belonging to a benefit society, and by the rules, he ought to have had a key, but in fact had none, and two of the stewards had each a key; the box being stolen, upon an indictment, laying the property in the landlord, Parke, J., held that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury of the property being in the landlord alone.(1) Wymer's case, 4 C. &. P. 391.

A house was taken by Kyezor, and Miers, who lived on his own property, carried on the business of a silversmith there for the benefit of Kyezor and his family, but had himself no share in the profits and no salary, but had power to dispose of any part of the stock, and might, if he pleased, take money from the till as he wanted it. Miers sometimes bought goods for the shop, and sometimes Kyezor did. Bosanquet, J., held that Miers was a bailee of the stock, and that the property in a watch stolen out of the house might properly be laid in him. R. v. Bird, 9 C. & P. 44.

Proof of ownership-bailees-goods in possession of carriers-drivers of stage-coaches, &c.] Carriers, as bailees of goods, have such a possession as to render an indictment, laying the property in them, good. Supra. And so it has been held, with regard to the driver of a stage-coach. The prisoner was indicted for stealing goods, the property of one Markham. The goods had been sent by the coach driven by Markham, and had been stolen from the boot on the road. The question was whether the goods were properly laid to be the property of Markham, who was not the owner, but only the driver of the coach, there being no contract between him and the proprietors that he should be liable for any thing stolen; and it not appearing that he had been guilty of any laches. Upon a case reserved, the judges were of opinion that the property was rightly laid in Markham; for though, as against his employers, he, as driver, had only the bare charge of the property committed to him, and not the legal possession, which remained in his masters, yet, as against all the rest of the world, he must be considered to have such special property therein as would support a count, charging them as his goods; for he had, in fact, the possession of and control over them; and they were intrusted to his custody and disposal during the journey. They said that the law upon an indictment against the driver of a stage-coach, on the prosecution [*639] of the proprietors, considers the driver to have the bare charge *of the goods belonging to the coach; but on a charge against any other person,

(1) So as to goods in possession of a captain of a vessel. Williams's case, 1 Rogers's Rec. 29.

for taking them tortiously and feloniously out of the driver's custody, he must be considered as the possessor. Deakins's case, 2 Leach, 862, 876; 2 East, P. C. 653.

Proof of ownership goods of deceased persons, executors, &c.] Where a person dies intestate, and the goods of the deceased are stolen before administration granted, the property must be laid in the ordinary; but if he dies, leaving a will, and making executors, the property may be laid in the executor, though he has not proved the will; and it is not necessary that the prosecutor should name himself ordinary or executor, because he proceeds on his own possession.(1) 1 Hale, P. C. 514; 2 East, P. C. 652.

Where a deceased had appointed executors who would not prove the will, Bolland, B., and Coleridge, J., held that the property must be laid in the ordinary, and not in a person who, after the commission of the offence, but before the indictment, had taken out letters of administration. George Smith's case, 7 C. & P. 147.

There can be no property in a dead corpse, and though a high misdemeanor, the stealing of it is no felony. A shroud stolen from the corpse must be laid to be the property of the executors, or whoever else buried the deceased. So the coffin may be laid to be the goods of the executor. But if it do not readily appear who is the personal representative of the deceased, laying the goods to be the goods of a person unknown is sufficient. 2 East, P. C. 652; 2 Russ. by Grea. 98.

A knife was stolen from the pocket of A. as he lay dead in a road in the diocese of W. A.'s last place of abode was at T. in the diocese of G., but A's father stated, that he believed his son had left T. to come to live with him, but he did not know whether his son had given up his lodgings at T. Patteson, J., held that there was sufficient proof to support a count for larceny, laying the property in the Bishop of W. R. v. Tippin, Car. and M. 545.b

In some cases the property of an intestate has been held to be rightly described as being in the party in actual possession, no administration having been granted. D. and C. were partners; C. died intestate, leaving a widow and children. From the time of his death, the widow acted as partner with D., and attended to the business of the shop. Three weeks after his death part of the goods were stolen, and were described in the indictment as the goods of D. and the widow. It was contended, that the name of the children, as next of kin, should have been joined, or that the property should have been laid in D. and the ordinary; but Chambre, J., held, that actual possession, as owner, was sufficient, and the judges, on a case reserved, were of the same opinion. Gabey's case, Russ. & Ry. 178. So where a father and son carried on business as farmers, and the son died intestate, after which the father carried on the business for the joint benefit of himself and the son's next of kin, some of the sheep being stolen, and being laid as the property of the father and next of kin, the judges, on a case reserved, held the indictment right. Scott's case, Russ. & Ry. 13.

Proof of ownership goods of lodgers.] Where a room, and the furniture in it, are let to a lodger, he has the sole right to the possession, *and if the [*640] goods are stolen, it has been held, in two cases, by the judges, that the property

(1) Property cannot be laid as belonging to a person deceased. State v. Davis, 2 Car. Law Rep. 291.

must be laid in the lodger. Belstead's case, Russ. & Ry. 411; Brunswick's case, 1 Moo. C. C. 26.

Proof of ownership-goods of married women.] Where goods, in the possession of a married woman, are stolen, they must not be described as her property, but as that of her husband; for her possession is his possession. 2 East, P. C. 652. See French's case, Russ. & Ry. 491;s Wilford's case, Id. 517,h stated ante, p. 355. Where the goods of a feme sole are stolen, and she afterwards marries, she may be described by her maiden name. Turner's case, 1 Leach, 536.

Proof of ownership—goods of persons unknown.] Felony may be committed in stealing goods, though the owner is not known, and they may be described in the indictment as the goods of a person to the jurors unknown; and the king is entitled to them. 1 Hale, P. C. 512; 2 East, P. 651. But if the owner be really known, an indictment, alleging the goods to be the property of a person unknown is improper, and the prisoner must be discharged upon that indictment. 2 East, P. C. 651. See Walker's case, 3 Campb. 264; Bush's case, Russ. & Ry. 372, stated ante, p. 105.

In prosecutions for stealing the goods of a person unknown, some proof must be given sufficient to raise a reasonable presumption that the taking was felonious, or invito domino; it is not enough that the prisoner is unable to give a good account how he came by the goods. 2 East, P. C. 651; 2 Hale, P. C. 290.

An indictment for plundering a wreck contained two counts. The first count stated the property in the ship to be in certain persons named: the second, in persons unknown. The witness for the prosecution could not recollect the Christian name of some of the owners. The counsel for the crown then relied on the second count, but Richards, C. B., said, "I think the prisoner must be acquitted. The owners, it appears, are known, but the evidence is defective on the point. How can I say that the owners are unknown?" Robinson's case, Holt's N. P. C. 596;j 2 Russ. by Grea. 98, (n.)

Proof of ownership—goods of servants.] In general, the possession of a servant is the possession of the master, the servant having merely the charge and custody of the goods; and in such case, the property must be laid in the master and not in the servant.(1) 2 East, P. C. 652; 2 Russ. by Grea. 92. Upon an indictment for stealing goods from a dissenting chapel, laying the property in one Evans, it appeared that Evans was the servant of the trustees of the chapel; that he had a salary of 57. a year, with the care of the chapel, and the things in it, to clean and keep in order, that he held the only key of the chapel, but that the minister had a key of the vestry, through which he might enter the chapel Upon a case reserved, the judges were of opinion that the property of the goods taken could not be considered as belonging to Evans. Hutchinson's case, Russ. & Ry. 412.* But in some cases, as against third persons, a party who, as against his employer, has the bare charge of goods, may be considered as having the possession, as in the

(1) Commonwealth v. Morse, 14 Mass. 217. Norton v. The People, 8 Cowen, 137. Poole v. Symonds, 1 N. Hamp. 289.

Where one has received money for himself and for another, for whom he acted as agent, and to whom he had given credit for his share, it is well alleged in the indictment for larceny, that the money was the property of the person receiving it. State v. Grant, 22 Maine, 171.

1 Eng. C. C. 411. 12 Id. 26.
Eng. Com. Law Reps. iii. 191.

case of a driver of a stage coach. Ante, p. 638. So where the owner of goods steals them from his own servant, with intent to charge him with the [*641] loss, the goods, may, as already stated, be described as the property of the servant. Ante, p. 634.

Proof of ownership of corporations.] Where goods are the property of a company of persons not incorporated, they must be described as the goods of the individuals, or of some one of the individuals, and others. 1 Russ. by Grea. 99. But by the 7 Geo. 4, c. 54, s. 20; (the 9 Geo. 4, c. 54, I.) judgment shall not be stayed or reversed on the ground that any person or persons mentioned in an indictment or information, is or are designated by a name of office, or other descriptive appellation, instead of his, her, or their proper name or names.

The goods of a corporation must be described as their goods, by their corporate name. Where in an indictment the goods were laid to be the property of A. B. C. D., &c., they the said A. B. C. D., &c., being the churchwardens of the parish church; and it appeared that the churchwardens were incorporated by the name of "the churchwardens of the parish church of Enfield," the court (at the Old Bailey) held the variance fatal. They said that where any description of men are directed by law to act in a corporate capacity, their natural and individual capacity, as to all matters respecting the subject of their incorporation, is totally extinct. If an action were brought in the private names of the prosecutors, for any matter relating to their public capacity, they must unavoidably be nonsuited, and a fortiori it must be erroneous in a criminal prosecution. Patrick's case, 1 Leach, 252. But where trustees were appointed by act of parliament (but not incorporated), for providing a workhouse, and property stolen from them was laid to be the property of "the trustees of the poor of," &c., without naming them, the court (at the Old Bailey) held it wrong; for as the act had not incorporated the trustees, and by that means given them collectively a public name, the property should have been laid as belonging to A. B., &c. by their proper names, and the words "trustees of the poor of," &c. subjoined as a description of the capacity in which they were authorized by the legislature to act. Sherrington's case, 1 Leach, 513. On the authority of this case the following was decided :-By the 24 Geo. 3, c. 15, certain inhabitants in seven parishes were incorporated by the name of "the guardians of the poor of," &c. Twelve directors were to be appointed out of the guardians, and the property belonging to the corporation was vested in "the directors for the time being," who were to execute the powers of the act. The prisoner was indicted for embezzling the moneys of the "directors of the poor of," &c. The judges, on a case reserved, held that the money should have been laid, either as the money of the guardians of the poor, by their corporate name, or of the directors for the time being, by their individual names. Beacall's case, 1 Moo. C. C. 15. See Jones & Palmer's case, 1 Leach, 366; 2 East, P. C. 991, ante, p. 507.

Proof of the ownership-Goods belonging to counties, &c.] By the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 15, with respect to the property of counties, ridings, and divisions, it is enacted, "that in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed in, upon, or with respect to any bridge, court, gaol, house of correction, infirmary, asylum, or other building, erected or maintained in whole, or in part, at the expense of any county, riding, or division, or on or with respect to any goods. or chattels whatsoever, provided for or at the expense of any county, [ *642 ] riding, or division, to be used for making, altering, or repairing any bridge, or any 12 Eng. C. C. 15.

highway at the ends thereof, or any court or other such building as aforesaid, or to be used in or with any such court or other building, it shall be sufficient to state any such property, real or personal, to belong to the inhabitants of such county, riding, or division; and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any of such inhabitants." The 9 Geo. 4, c. 54, s. 29, (I.) contains a somewhat similar

enactment.

Proof of the ownership—goods for the use of the poor of parishes.] By the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 16, with respect to the property of parishes, townships and hamlets, it is enacted, "that in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed in, upon, or with respect to any workhouse or poorhouse, or on or with respect to any goods or chattels whatsoever, provided for the use of the poor of any parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, or to be used in any workhouse or poorhouse in or belonging to the same, or by the master or mistress of such workhouse or poorhouse, or by any workmen or servants employed therein, it shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the overseers of the poor for the time being of such parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of all or any of such overseers; and in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed on or with respect to any materials, tools, or implements, provided for making, altering, or repairing any highway within any parish, township, hamlet, or place, otherwise than by the trustees or commissioners of any turnpike-road, it shall be sufficient to aver that any such things are the property of the surveyor or surveyors of the highways for the time being of such parish, township, hamlet, or place, and it shall not be necessary to specify the name or names of any such surveyor or surveyors.”

Proof of ownership goods, &c., of trustees of turnpikes.] By the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 17, with respect to property under turnpike trusts, it is enacted, “that in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed on or with respect to any house, building, gate, machine, lamp, board, stone, post, fence, or other thing, erected or provided in pursuance of any act of parliament for making any turnpike road, or any of the conveniences or appurtenances thereunto respectively belonging, or any materials, tools, or implements provided for making, altering, or repairing any such road, it shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the trustees or commissioners of such road, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any such trustees or commissioners."

Proof of ownership—goods, &c., of commissioners of sewers.] By the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 18, with respect to property under commissioners of sewers, it is enacted, "that in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed on or with respect to any sewer or other matter within or under the view, cognisance, or management of any commissioners of sewers, it shall be sufficient to state any [*643] *such property to belong to the commissioners of sewers, within or under whose view, cognisance, or management, any such thing shall be, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any of such commissioners."

Proof of ownership goods belonging to friendly societies, &c.] By the 10 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 21, the moneys, goods, chattels, securities for money, and all other effects whatever, belonging to any friendly society, may be described to be the property of the person appointed to the office of treasurer or trustee of the society