holder or partner therein, or to intrust or advance any property to such body corporate or public company, or to enter into any security for the benefit thereof.

The offences defined in clauses (a.) and (c.) may be committed by members, and the offences defined in clauses (b.), (c.), and (d.) by managers of bodies corporate and public companies, as well as by the directors or public officers

thereof.

ARTICLE 380.

RULE OF EVIDENCE.

1 No one is entitled to refuse to make a full and complete discovery by answer to any statement of claim for discovery, or to answer any question or interrogatory in any civil proceeding in any Court, or upon the hearing of any matter in bankruptcy, upon the ground that his doing so might tend to show that he had committed any of the offences defined in Articles 374 to 379, both inclusive.

No one is liable to be convicted of any such misdemeanor by any evidence whatever in respect of any act done by him. if he has at any time, previous to his being charged with such offence, 2 first disclosed such act on oath in consequence of any compulsory process of any Court which, in 1861, was a Court of either law or equity, in any action, suit, or proceeding bonâ fide instituted by any party aggrieved, or if he has 2 first disclosed the same in any compulsory examination or deposition before any Court upon the hearing of any matter in bankruptcy or insolvency.

ARTICLE 381.

FRAUDULENT FALSE ACCOUNTING.

3 Every one commits a misdemeanor who, being a clerk officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a

1 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 85.

2 On this word, which was not in the earlier Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39, s. 6, see R. v. Skeen, 1859, Bell, C. C. 97.

3 38 & 39 Vict. c. 24, s. 1.

clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates, or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security, or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer;

or wilfully and with intent to defraud, makes or concurs in making any false entry in, or omits or alters, or concurs in omitting or altering any material particular from or in any such book, or any document or account.

1

CHAPTER XLIII

RECEIVING

ARTICLE 382.

RECEIVING DEFINED.

1 A PERSON is said to receive goods improperly obtained as soon as he obtains control over them from the person from whom he receives them.

Where goods are received by a wife or servant, in the husband's or master's absence, with a guilty knowledge on the part of such wife or servant, the husband or master does not become a receiver only by acquiring a guilty knowledge of the receipt of the goods by such wife or servant, and passively acquiescing therein, but he does become a receiver with a guilty knowledge if, having such knowledge, he does any act approving of the receiving of the goods.

Property ceases to be stolen or otherwise improperly obtained within the meaning of this Article as soon as it comes into the possession of the general or special owner, and if such general or special owner delivers it to some one who delivers it to a person who receives it knowing of the previous theft or other obtaining, such receiving is not an offence within this Article.

1 R. v. Wiley, 1850, 2 Den. 37. In this case the thieves carried stolen fowls into a stable belonging to the receiver's father. The receiver lighted them in, and was taken in the act of bargaining for them as they lay on the ground between the three men. Eight judges to four held that the conviction must be quashed; substantially they all agreed in the proposition given in the text, but they differed on the question whether, under the circumstances, the receiver had the control of the fowls or not. There was also some difference as to the effect of the terms in which the question had been left to the jury by the chairman of sessions who stated the case. For these reasons I have not attempted to turn the case into an illustration. The case of R. v. T. Smith, 1855, D. & P. 494, is somewhat similar. See, too, R. v. Hill, 1849, 1 Den. 453. In R. v. Miller, 1854, 6 Cox, C. C. 353, a person was found guilty of receiving who had never had possession of the goods except by a servant.

1

Illustrations.

(1.) A's wife in A's absence receives stolen potatoes knowing them to be stolen. The jury finds that A "afterwards adopted his wife's receipt." This finding is not sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty, as it is consistent with A's having passively consented to what his wife had done without taking any active part in the matter.

(2.) 2 A's wife in A's absence receives stolen goods and pays the thief 6d. on account. The thief then tells A, who strikes a bargain with the thief, and pays him the balance. A has received stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.

3

(3.) B steals C's property. C finds it in B's pocket, restores it to B, and tells B to sell it at the same place where he has sold other property of C's. B sells it to A, who knows that it has been stolen. A commits no offence, as the property after being stolen has got into the owner's hands.

(4.) B steals goods from a railway to which they have been bailed. B then sends the goods to A by the same railway. A receives them, knowing them to have been stolen, from the railway porter knowing them to have been stolen. A policeman employed by the railway discovers whilst the goods are in transit that they have been stolen, and causes them to be delivered to A in order to detect them. A has committed no offence under this Article.

ARTICLE 383.

RECEIVING PROPERTY UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED.

Every one commits an offence amounting, in cases (a.), (b.), and (d.), to felony, and in case, (c.) to misdemeanor, and is liable upon conviction thereof, to penal servitude for life in case (a.), and to penal servitude for fourteen years in case (b.), and to penal servitude for seven years in cases (c.) and (d.), who does any of the following things (that is to say):

1 R. v. Dring, 1857, D. & B. 329.

2 R. v. Woodward, 1822, L. & C. 122. A husband can receive from a wife who steals on her own account in his absence: R. v. M'Athey, 1862, L. & C. 250.

3 R. v. Dolan, 1855, D. & P. 436.

4 R. v. Schmidt, 1866, 1 C. C. R. 15. Erle, C.J., and Mellor, J., dissented, on the ground that the company were the innocent agent of the thieves, and that the policeman merely looked at the goods, and took no possession of them.

(a.) 1 who receives any post letter or post letter-bag, or any chattel, or money, or valuable security, the stealing, taking, embezzling, or secreting whereof is referred to in Article 350, clause (b.), knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen, taken, embezzled, or secreted, and to have been sent or to have been intended to be sent by the post; or (b.) 2 who receives any chattel, money, valuable security, or other property whatsoever, the stealing, taking, extorting, obtaining, embezzling, or otherwise disposing whereof is a felony, either at common law or by the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96 (3 but not by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116), knowing the same to have been so dealt with; or

(c.) who, knowing the same to have been so dealt with, receives any chattel, money, valuable security, or other property which may have been stolen, taken, obtained, converted, or disposed of in such a manner as to amount to a misdemeanor by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96; or

(d.) 5 who corruptly takes any money or reward, directly or indirectly, under pretence or upon account of helping any person to any chattel, money, valuable security, or other property whatsoever, stolen, taken, obtained, extorted, embezzled, converted, or disposed of by any felony or misdemeanor prohibited by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, unless he uses all due diligence to cause the offender to be brought to trial for the same.

17 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 30.

2 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 91.

3 Which makes stealing by a partner, &c., felony, see supra, Art. 327: R. v. Smith, 1870, 1 C. C. R. 266, an instructive, but I think a most unfortunate, decision. It is exactly in the same spirit as R. v. Sadi, 1787, 1 Lea. 468, in which it was held that to receive a bank-note knowing it to be stolen was not felony, because bank-notes are not the subject of larceny at common law. See, too, R. v. Robinson, 1859, Bell C. C. 34, Art. 358, Illustration (1).

4 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 95.

5 Ibid. s. 101, W. (in the case of males under eighteen. In all other cases whipping is confined to males under sixteen).