he was informed by S. that they had been put on his, S.'s marshes and had strayed, and a few days after that that they belonged to H. Prisoner left them on his marshes for a day or two, and then sent them a long distance away on his own property to be kept for him. He then told S.that he had lost them, and denied all knowledge of them. The jury found—1, that at the time the prisoner found the heifers, he had reasonable expectation that the owner could be found, and that he did not believe that they had been abandoned by the owner.-2. That at the time of finding them he did not intend to steal them, but that the intention to steal came on him subsequently.-3. That the prisoner when he sent them away, did so for the purpose and with the intention of depriving the owner of them and appropriating them to his own use: held, that a conviction of larceny, or of larceny as bailee, could not be sustained under the above circumstances. -Reg. vs. Matthews, 12 Cox, 489.

The prisoner was frequently employed by the prosecutor to fetch coals from C. Before each journey, the prosecutor made up to the prisoner £24, out of which he was to pay for the coals, keep 23 shillings for himself, and, if the price of the coal, with the 23 shillings, did not amount to £24, to keep the balance in hand to the credit of the next journey. It was the prisoner's duty to pay for the coal, as he obtained it, with the money received from the prosecutor; and the prosecutor did not know but that he did so; but provided he was supplied with the coal, and not required to pay more than the proper price for it, it was immaterial to the prosecutor in what manner the prisoner paid for it. On the 20th of March, the prisoner had a balance of £3 in hand, and the prosecutor gave him £21 to make up £24 for next journey. The prisoner did not then buy any coal,

but fraudulently appropriated the money: held, that the conviction of the prisoner for larceny of the £21 as a bailee was right.-Reg. vs. Aden, 12 Cox, 512.

Boot and shoe manufacturers gave out to their workmen leather and materials to be worked up, which were entered in the men's books and charged to their debit. The men might either take them to their own homes to work up, or work them up upon the prosecutor's premises; but in the latter case they paid for the seats provided for them. When the work was done they received a receipt for the delivery of the leather and materials and payment of the work. If the leather and materials were not re-delivered, they were required to be paid for. The prisoner Daynes was in the prosecutor's employ, and received materials for twelve pairs of boots: he did some work upon them, but instead of returning them sold them to the prisoner Warner. These materials were entered in the prosecutor's books to Daynes' debit, but omitted by mistake to be entered in Daynes' book: held, that Daynes could not be convicted of larceny as a bailee, under the 3rd section of the Larceny Act, as the offence of which he had been guilty was punishable summarily under 13 Geo. 2, ch. 8.—Reg. vs. Daynes, 12 Cox, 514.

An indictment for larceny by a bailee may be in the general form of indictment for larceny at common law; and it is not necessary to allege that the defendant is a bailee.-3 Burn's Justice, 305.

PUNISHMENT FOR SIMPLE LARCENY.

Sect. 4.-Whosoever is convicted of simple larceny or of any felony hereby made punishable like simple larceny, shall (except in the cases hereinafter otherwise provided for) be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any

term not exceeding three years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.-24-25 Vict., ch. 96, sect. 4, Imp.

As to larceny after a previous conviction, see sections 7, 8, 9; and sect. 122, as to requiring the offender to enter into his own recognizances, and to find sureties, both or either, in cases of felony punishable under this Act. As to solitary confinement, see sect. 94 of the Procedure Act of 1869.

As to additional punishment, when the property stolen is over two hundred dollars in value, see post, sect. 110.

THREE LARCENIES, WITHIN SIX MONTHS IN ONE INDICTMENT.

Sect. 5.-It shall be lawful to insert several counts in the same indictment against the same person for any number of distinct acts of stealing, not exceeding three, which have been committed by him against the same person within the space of six months from the first to the last of such acts, and to proceed thereon for all or any of them.-24-25 Vict., ch. 96, sect. 5, Imp.

Before the passing of the Act, it was no objection in point of law that an indictment contained separate counts charging distinct felonies of the same degree, and committed by the same offender.-2 Hale, 173; 1 Chit. 253; Reg. vs. Heywood, L. & C. 451. It was, in truth, a matter for the discretion of the Court; and if the Court thought the prisoners would be embarrassed by the counts, the Court would either quash the indictment, or compel the Counsel for the prosecution to elect.R. vs. Young, 2 East's P. C. 515. It seems that, where three acts of larceny are charged in separate counts there

may also be three counts for receiving.-Reg. vs. Heywood, L. & C. 451. See, post, remarks under next section.

Greaves, on this clause, says:

"It frequently happened before this Statute passed that a servant or clerk stole sundry articles of small value from his master at different times, and in such a case it was necessary to prefer separate indictments for each distinct act of stealing, and on the trial it not seldom happened that the jury, having their attention confined to the theft of a single article of small value, improperly acquitted the prisoner on one or more indictments. The present section remedies these inconveniences, and places several larcenies from the same person in the same position as several embezzlements of the property of the same person, so that the prosecutor may now include three larcenies of his property committed within the space of six calendar months in the same indictment."-Lord Campbell's Acts, by Greaves, 19.

IF ONE TAKING IS CHARGED, AND SEVERAL ARE PROVED.

Sect. 6.-If, upon the trial of any indictment for larceny it appears that the property alleged in such indictment to have been stolen at one time was taken at different times, the prosecutor or counsel for the prosecution shall not by reason thereof be required to elect upon which taking he will proceed, unless it appears that there were more than three takings, or that more than the space of six months elapsed between the first and the last of such takings, and in either of such last mentioned cases the prosecutor or counsel for the prosetion shall be required to elect to proceed for such number of takings not exceeding three, as appear to have taken place within the period of six months from the

first to the last of such takings.-24-25 Vict., ch. 96, sect. 6, Imp.

The word "months " in this and the preceding clause means a calendar month.-31 Vict., ch. 1, sect. 7, Interpretation Act.

The effect of the above and the preceding section, is to restrain the power of the Court with respect to the doctrine of election. The Court cannot now put the prosecutor to his election where the indictment charges three acts of larceny within six months, or where the evidence shows that the property was not stolen at more than three different times, and that not more than six months had elapsed between the first and last of such times. But, on the other hand, the Court is not bound by the above section to put the prosecutor to his election in other cases, but is left to its discretion, according to the old practice at common law.-R. vs. Jones, 2 Campb. 131; Reg. vs. Heywood, L. & C. 451.

By means of a secret junction pipe with the main of a gas company, a mill was supplied with gas, which did not pass through the gas meter, and which was consumed without being paid for. This continued to be done for some years: held, on an indictment for stealing 1000 cubic feet of gas on a particular day, the entire evidence might be given, as there was one continuous act of stealing all the time, and that section 6 of the Larceny Act, as to the prosecutor's electing on three separate takings within six months, did not apply.-Reg. vs. Firth, 11 Cox 234.

An indictment charged an assistant to a photographer with stealing on a certain day divers articles belonging to his employer. It did not appear when the articles were taken, whether at one or more times, but only that they were found in the prisoner's possession on the