STEALING OR BREAKING, ETC., ETC., LEAD, METAL, GLASS, ETC., ETC., FIXED TO HOUSE OR LAND.

Sect. 20.-Whosoever steals, or rips, cuts, severs, or breaks with intent to steal, any glass or woodwork belonging to any building whatsoever, or any lead, iron, copper, brass or other metal, or any utensil or fixture, whether made of metal or other material, or of both, respectively, fixed in or to any building whatsoever, or any thing made of metal fixed in any land, being private property, or for a fence to any dwelling-house, garden or area, or in any square or street, or in any place dedicated to public use or ornament, or in any burial ground, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be punished as in the case of simple larceny: and in case of any such thing fixed in any such square, street or place as aforesaid, it shall not be necessary to allege the same to be the property of any person.-24-25 Vict., ch. 96, sect. 31, Inp.

At common law, larceny could not be committed of things attached to the freehold.

As to punishment for simple larceny, see ante, sect. 4, and post, sects. 110 and 122.

This enactment extends the offence much further than the prior acts did, as it includes all utensils and fixtures of whatever materials made, either fixed to buildings or in land, or in a square or street. A church, and indeed all buildings are within the Act, and an indictment for stealing lead fixed to a certain building, without further description will suffice.-R. vs. Parker, 1 East P. C. 592; R. vs. Norris, R. & R., 69.-An unfinished building boarded on all sides, with a door and a lock, and a roof of loose gorse, was held a building within the Statute.— R. vs. Worrald, 7 C. & P. 516.-So also where the lead sto'en formed the gutters of two sheds buït of brick,

timber and tiles upon a wharf fixed to the soil, it was held that this was a building within the Act.-Reg. vs. Rice, Bell, 87.-But a plank used as a seat and fixed on a wall with pillars, but with no roof was held not to be a building.-R. vs. Reece, 2 Russell, 254. Where a man, having given a false representation of himself, got into possession of a house, under a treaty for a lease of it, and then stripped it of the lead, the jury being of opinion that he obtained possession of the house with intent to steal the lead, found him guilty, and he after wards had judgment.-R. vs. Munday, 2 Leach, 850.

A prisoner, however, cannot, upon an indictment for this statutable felony, be convicted of simple larceny.Reg. vs. Gooch, 8 C. & P. 293.

The prisoners were found guilty of having stolen a copper sun-dial fixed upon a wooden post in a churchyard. Conviction held right.—Reg. vs. Jones, Dears. & B. 655.

The ownership of the building from which the fixture is stolen must be correctly laid in the indictment.-2 Russell, 255.

Indictment for stealing metal fixed in land being private property.—.... two hundred pounds weight of iron, the property of J. N., then being fixed in a certain land which was then private property, to wit, in a garden of the said J. N. situate...... feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against.... Archbold, 369.

STEALING OR CUTTING TREES.

Sect. 21.-Whosoever steals or cuts, breaks, roots up, or otherwise destroys or damages with intent to steal, the whole or any part of any tree, sapling or shrub, or any underwood respectively growing in any park, pleasure ground, garden, orchard or avenue, or in any ground

adjoining or belonging to any dwelling-house, in case the value of the article or articles stolen, or the amount of the injury done, exceeds the sum of five dollars, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be punished as in the case of simple larceny; and whosoever steals or cuts, breaks, roots up, or otherwise destroys or damages with intent to steal, the whole or any part of any tree, sapling or shrub, or any underwood, respectively growing elsewhere than in any of the situations in this section before mentioned, in case the value of the article or articles stolen, or the amount of the injury done, exceeds the sum of twenty-five dollars, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be punished as in the case of simple larceny. -24-25 Vict., ch. 96, sect. 32, Imp.

See sect. 4, ante, as to punishment for simple larceny, and sects. 110 and 122, post.

The words "grounds adjoining" mean ground in active contact with the dwelling-house. Whether the ground be a park or garden, etc., is a question for the jury. It seems it is not material that it should be in every part of it a park or garden.-R. vs. Hodges, M. & M. 341.-The amount - of injury mentioned in this and the following section must be the actual injury to the tree or shrub itself, and not the consequential injury resulting from the act of the defendant.-Reg. vs. Whiteman, Dears. 353.-The respective values of several trees, or of the damage thereto, may be added to make up the £5, in case the trees were cut down, or the damage done as part of one continuous transaction.-Reg vs. Shepherd, 11 Cox, 119.

Indictment for stealing trees, etc., in parks, etc., of the value above five dollars.......one oak tree of the value of eight dollars, the property of J. N., then growing in a certain park of the said J. N. situate. ... in the said

park, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against Archbold, 361.

Indictment under second part of the section.....one ash-tree of the value of thirty dollars, the property of J. N., then growing in a certain close of the said J. N. situate.... in the said close, feloniously did steal, take and carry away, against the form.....

It is not necessary to prove that the close was not a park or garden, etc.-Archbold, 362.

See proviso to sect. 23, post.

STEALING TREES WORTH 25 CENTS. FIRST OFFENCE. SECOND OFFENCE. THIRD OFFENCE.

Sect. 22.-Whosoever steals, or cuts, breaks, roots up or otherwise destroys or damages with intent to steal, the whole or any part of any tree, sapling, or shrub, or any underwood, wheresoever the same may be respectively growing, the stealing of such article or articles. or the injury done being to the amount of twenty-five cents at the least, shall, on conviction thereof before a Justice of the Peace, ferfeit and pay, over and above the value of the article or articles stolen, or the amount of the injury done, such sum of money not exceeding twenty-five dollars as to the justice may seem meet; and whosoever, having been convicted of any such offence, either against this or any former Act or Law, afterwards commits any of the said offences in this section before mentioned, and is convicted thereof in like manner, shall for such second offence be committed to the common. gaol or house of correction, there to be kept to hard labour for such term, not exceeding three months, asthe convicting Justice may think fit; and whosoever, having been twice convicted of any such offence, whether

both or either of such convictions shall have taken place before or after the passing of this Act, afterwards commits any of the offences in this section before mentioned, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as in the case of simple larceny.-24-25 Vict., ch. 96, sect. 33, Imp.

By sect. 123, post offences punishable by summary conviction are to be prosecuted under 32-33 Vict., ch. 31. As to punishment for simple larceny, see ante, sect. 4, and post, sect. 122.

See proviso to sect. 23, post.

As to indictment for any subsequent offence, see sect. 26, of the Procedure Act of 1869, which is based on sect. 116 of the English Larceny Act.

Indictment.-The Jurors for Our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that J. S. on......one oak sapling of the value of forty cents, the property of J. N., then growing in certain land situate. . . . . .unlawfully did steal, take and carry away,against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided; and the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that heretofore, and before the committing of the offence herein before mentioned, to wit on . . . .at....the said J. S. was duly convicted before J. P., one of Her said Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the said district of......for that he, the said J. S., on......(as in the first conviction) against the form of the Statute in such case made and provided; and the said J. S. was thereupon then and there adjudged, for his said offence, to forfeit and pay the sum of twenty dollars, over and above the value of the said tree so stolen as aforesaid, and the further sum of forty cents, being the value of the said tree, and also to pay the further sum of... ...for costs; and in default of immediate payment of the said sums to be imprisoned in the common gaol of the said district of