of a consignment to a factor, no re-delivery is contemPlated between the parties. In some cases, no use is contemplated by the bailee, in others it is of the essence of the contract; in some cases time is material to terminate the contract; in others, time is necessary to give a new accessorial right. Mr. Justice Blackstone has defined a bailment to be "a delivery of goods in trust upon a contract expressed or implied, that the trust shall be faithfully executed on the part of the bailee." And in another place as a "delivery of goods to another person for a particular use." It may perhaps be doubted, whether, although generally true, a faithful execution, if by faithful be meant a conscientious diligence or faithfulness, adequate to a due execution, or a particular use, if by use be meant an actual right of user by the bailee, constitutes an essential or proper ingredient in all cases of bailment, Mr. Chancellor Kent, in his commentaries, has blended, in some measure, the definitions of Jones and Blackstone. Without professing to enter into a minute criticism, it may be said that a bailment is a delivery of a thing in trust for some special object or purpose, and upon a contract express or implied to conform to the object or purpose of the trust. In the celebrated case of Coggs vs. Bernard, Lord Raym. 909, 1 Smith's leading cases, 177, Lord Holt divided bailments thus:

1. Depositum, or a naked bailment of goods, to be kept for the use of the bailor.

2. Commodatum, where goods or chattels that are useful are lent to the bailee gratis, to be used by him.

3. Locato rei, where goods are lent to the bailee to be used by him for hire.

4. Vadium, pawn or pledge.

5. Locatio operis faciendi, where goods are delivered to be carried, or something is to be done about them, for a reward to be paid to the bailee.

6. Mandatum, a delivery of goods to somebody, who is to carry them, or do something about them gratis. -Wharton, law lexicon.

A carrier who receives money to procure goods, obtains and duly delivers the goods, but fraudulently retains the money, is within this section.-R. vs. Wells, 1 F. & F.

109.

So one who takes a watch from the pocket of a tipsy man with his consent is a bailee of the watch.-R. vs. Reeves, 5 Jur. N. S. 716.

The bailment intended is a deposit of something to be specifically returned, and therefore one who receives money with no obligation to return the identical coins received is not a bailee within the section.-Reg. vs. Hassall, 1 Leigh & Cave, 58; Reg. vs. Garratt, 2 F. & F. 14; Reg. vs Hoare, 1 F. & F. 647.

The prosecutor gave the prisoner money to buy half a ton of coals for him. He bought the coals and took a receipt in his own name, and used his own horse and cart to fetch them, but on the way home he appropriated a portion of the coals to his own use, and afterwards pretended to the prosecutor that he had delivered to him the full quantity: Held, that even if it was necessary to show a specific appropriation of the coals to the prosecutor, there was sufficient evidence of such appropriation, and that the prisoner was rightly convicted of larceny as a bailee.-Reg. vs. Bunkall, Leigh & C. 371; 9 Cox, 419.

A carrier employed by the prosecutor to deliver in his, the prisoner's cart, a boat's cargo of coals to persons named in a list, to whom only he was authorized to deliver them, and having fraudulently sold some of the coals and appropriated the proceeds, is properly convicted of larceny as a bailee.-Reg. vs. Davies, 10 Cox, 239.

A., who was a trustee of a friendly society, was

appointed by a resolution of the Society to receive money from the treasurer and carry it to the bank. He received the money from the treasurer's clerk, but instead of taking it to the bank he applied it to his own purposes. He was indicted for stealing, as bailee of the money of the treasurer, and also for a common law larceny. The 18-19 Vict., ch. 63, sect. 18, vests the property of friendly societies in the trustees, and directs that in all indictments the property shall be laid in their names: Held, that A. could not be convicted either as a bailee or of a common law larceny.-Reg. vs. Loose, Bell, 259; 8 Cox, 302.

On an indictment for larceny as a bailee, it appeared that the prisoner borrowed a coat from the prosecutor, with whom he lodged, for a day, and returned it. Three days afterwards he took it without the prosecutor's permission, and was seen wearing it by him, and he again gave him permission to wear it for the day. Some few days afterwards, he left the town, and was found wearing the coat on board a ship bound for Australia. Martin,

B., stopped the case, stating that in his opinion there was no evidence of a conversion. There are many instances of conversion sufficient to maintain an action of trover, which would not be sufficient to support a conviction under this Statute: the determination of the bailment must be something analogous to larceny, and some act must be done inconsistent with the purposes of the bailment. As for instance, in the case of a bailment of an article of silver for use, melting it would be evidence of conversion. So when money or a negotiable security is bailed to a person for safe keeping, if he spend the money or convert the security, he is guilty of a conversion within the Statute. The prosecution ought to find some definite time at which the offence was committed. The taking the

coat on board ship was subsequent to the prisoner's going on board himself.-Reg. vs. Jackson, 9 Cox, 505.

Greaves, on this case, says: If this case is correctly reported it deserves reconsideration. The words are,

"take or convert the same to his own use." The clause therefore does not require a conversion, but was studiously framed to avoid the necessity of proving one. The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury that the prisoner took the coat on board for his own use with intent permanently to deprive the owner of it; and such a case seems clearly within the Statute. Besides the case ought to have been left to the jury to say whether he did not return the coat to the prosecutor's house after the end of the last bailment for a day. If so the case was simply

one of larceny.-3 Russell, 666.

M. was the owner of a wrecked ship. A. contracted with M. to save and recover the wrecked property. A. made a sub-contract with R. C. to act as diver and carry on the works of salvage; all goods saved to be forwarded to A., and the remuneration to be a percentage on the goods saved, but R. C. always to retain £150, as a guarantee. In his absence, R. C. put the defendant, his son, in charge of the wreck. The defendant corresponded with A. as to the sale of the salvage, and he was addressed by A. as a responsible party under the contract. A. deposed, however, that he had always considered R. C. as the party liable on the contract. The defendant sold and appropriated part of the salvage. The jury found that he did so animo furandi, but no question was asked them as to whether he was a bailee of A. Held, dissentientibus Fitzgerald and George, J.J., that there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant was a bailee so as to make him liable for larceny under the 3rd section of the Larceny Act, also, that the property was rightly laid

in M.-Reg. vs. Clegg, Irish Cr. Appeal Court, 11 Cox,

212.

A. delivered two brooches to the prisoner to sell for him at £200 for one and £115 for the other, and the prisoner was to have them for a week for that purpose; but two or three days grace might be allowed. After ten days had elapsed, the prisoner sold them with other jewellery for £250, but arranged with the vendee that he might redeem the brooches for £110 before September: held, that this amounted to a fraudulent conversion of the brooches to his own use by a bailee within sect. 3 of the Larceny Act.-Reg. vs. Henderson, 11 Cox, 593.

A traveller was entrusted with pieces of silk, about 95 yards each, to carry about with him for sale to such customers as he might procure. It was his duty to send by the next post after sale the names and addresses of the customers to whom any might have been sold, and the. numbers, qualities and prices of the silk sold. All goods not so accounted for remained in his hands, and were counted by his employers as stock. At the end of each half year it was his duty to send in an account for the entire six months, and to return the unsold silk. He was paid by a commission. Within six months after four pieces of silk had been delivered to him, the prisoner rendered an account of the same, and entered them as sold to two persons, with instructions to his employers to send invoices to the alleged customers. It turned out that this was false, and that he had appropriated the silk to his own use: held, on a case reserved, by the Court of Criminal Appeal unanimously, that the prisoner was rightly convicted of larceny as a bailee.-Reg. vs. Richmond, 12 Cox, 495.

The prisoner found two heifers which had strayed, and put them on his own marshes to graze. Soon afterwards