| with D., and attended the business of the shop; three weeks after C.'s death part of the goods was stolen ; they were described in the indictment as the goods of D. and the widow:-Held, that the description was right. Rex v. Gaby, R. & R. C. C. 178. A. and H. were members of the society. H. was in possession of a shop where goods were sold for the society, and had the sole management, and was answerable for property and money coming into his possession. A., while assisting in the shop, without salary, took the money from the till. The prosecution failing to prove the society was duly inrolled, the indictment was amended by inserting H.'s name, instead of" F. and others." It was then proved, on behalf of A., that the society was inrolled-Held, of the shepherd, under the orders of that a conviction upon the amended indictment might be sustained. Reg. v. Webster, 7 Jur., N. S. 1208; 31 L. J., M. C. 17; 10 W. R. 20; 5 L. T., N. S. 327—C. C. R. On Death of Parties.]-In an indictment for stealing property which has belonged to a deceased person, who appointed executors, who would not prove the will, the property must be laid in the ordinary, and not in a person who, after the commission of the offence, but before the indictment, has taken out letters of administration with the will annexed; because the rights of an administrator only commence from the date of the letters, as distinguished from those of an executor, which commence, not from the granting of the probate, but from the death of the testator. Rex v. Smith, 7 C. & P. 147-Bolland and Coleridge. Where two had jointly stock upon a farm, and one died, leaving several children :-Held, that the property in sheep stolen was properly alleged to be in the survivor and the children; the former swearing that he considered himself to hold one moiety for the benefit of the latter. Rex v. Scott, 2 East, P. C. 655; R. & R. C. C. 13. D. & C. were partners; C. died intestate, leaving a widow and children; from the time of his death the widow acted as partner On an indictment for stealing sheep, which had been stolen after the death of the late owner, there being no formal proof of a will or an administration, but it appearing that the sheep were in charge a steward, who was under the order of the prosecutors, and took directions from and rendered accounts to them :-Held, that there was sufficient evidence of a possession in them, which would sustain the indictment. Reg. v. King, 4 F. & F. 493-Crompton. A knife was stolen from the pocket of A., as his dead body lay in a road at S., in the diocese of W. The last place of abode of A. 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 did not know whether his son had given up his lodgings at T.:-Held, that this was sufficient proof to support a count for larceny, laying the property in the Lord Bishop of W. Reg. v. Tippin, Car. & M. 545-Patteson. A. was convicted upon an indictment charging her with stealing numerous articles, laid as the property of the ordinary. The evidence was, that the articles, which belonged to a deceased person, were after her death found in A.'s possession; that search had been made for a will, and none found; and that a small portion only of the articles had been seen in the house of the deceased after her death :-Held, that the property was rightly laid in the ordinary, and that the sessions had done right in leaving the case, as to the whole of the articles, to the jury, and in refusing to put the age of sixteen, with or without "whipping: provided, that no per" son, howsoever tried for receiving as aforesaid, shall be liable to be "prosecuted a second time for the same offence." (Former provision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 54.) 66 On Conviction of Felons.]-Goods By s. 95, "whosoever shall reof an adjudged felon, stolen from "ceive any chattel, money, valuable his house, in the possession and oc- "security, or other property whatcupation of his wife, may be describ-"soever, the stealing, taking, ob ed in an indictment for larceny as "taining, converting, or disposing the goods of the Queen. But the "whereof is made a misdemeanor house cannot be so described with- "by this act, knowing the same to out office found. Reg. v. White-"have been unlawfully stolen, takhead, 2 M. C. C. 181; S. P., Coombes en, obtained, converted, or dispos v. Queen's Proctor, 16 Jur. 820-"ed of, shall be guilty of a misde Pre. C. meanor, and may be indicted and convicted thereof, whether the "person guilty of the principal mis"demeanor shall or shall not have "been previously convicted thereof, or shall or shall not be amenable 19. Receivers of Stolen Property. (a) Statutory Provisions. 66 66 " er, being convicted thereof, shall "be liable, at the discretion of the " court, to be kept in penal servi "tude for any term not exceeding "seven years and not less than five 66 By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 91,"to justice; and every such receiv "whosoever shall receive any chat"tel, money, valuable security, or "other property whatsoever, the "stealing, taking, extorting, obtain"ing, embezzling, or otherwise dis"posing whereof shall amount to a years (27 & 28 Vict. c. 47), or to felony either at common law or "be imprisoned for any term not "by virtue of this act, knowing the "exceeding two years, with or with same to have been feloniously "out hard labour, and with or with"stolen, taken, extorted, obtained," out solitary confinement, and, if a "embezzled, or disposed of, shall be "male under the age of sixteen "guilty of felony, and may be in- " years, with or without whipping." "dicted and convicted either as an By s. 97, "where the stealing or "accessory after the fact or for a "taking of any property whatsoever "substantive felony, and in the lat-"is by this act punishable on sum"ter case, whether the principal mary conviction, either for every "felon shall or shall not have been "offence, or for the first and second "previously convicted, or shall or "offence only, or for the first offence "shall not be amenable to justice; "only, any person who shall receive "and every such receiver, howsoev-"any such property, knowing the "er convicted, shall be liable, at same to be unlawfully come by, "the discretion of the court, to be "shall, on conviction thereof before "kept in penal servitude for any "a justice of the peace, be liable, term not exceeding fourteen and "for every first, second, or subse"not less than five years (27 & 28" quent offence of receiving, to the "Vict. c. 47), or to be imprisoned" same forfeiture and punishment to "for any term not exceeding two, "which a person guilty of a first, "with or without hard labour, and "second or subsequent offence of "with or without solitary confine-"stealing or taking such property is "ment, and, if a male under the "by this act made liable." 66 66 66 (b) Who are Receivers. If a receiver of stolen goods receives them for the mere purpose of concealment, without deriving any profit at all, he is just as much a receiver as if he had purchased them. Rex v. Richardson, 6 C. & P. 335 -Gaselee, Vaughan and Taunton. Without proof of an actual taking into possession, an indictment for receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen cannot be sustained. Reg. v. Hill, 3 New Sess. Cas. 648; 1 Den. C. C. 453; T. & M. 150; 2 C. & K. 978; 13 Jur. 545; 18 L. J., M. C. 199. W. stole a watch from A.; and while W. and L. were in custody together, W. told L. that he had "planted" the watch under a flag in a soot-cellar of L.'s house. After this L. was discharged, and went to the flag and took up the watch, and sent his wife to pawn it :-Held, that, if L. thus took the watch in consequence of W.'s information, W. telling L. in order that he might use the information by taking the watch, L. was indictable for this as a receiver of stolen goods; but that if this was an act done by L. in opposition to W., or against his will, it might be a question whether it would be a receiving. Reg. v. Wade, 1 C. & K. 739-Pollock. prisoner going before them with a light. The stable-door was closed by one of the party, and when the policeman entered he found the two thieves and the prisoner standing round the sack, which lay on the floor untied, as if bargaining for the fowls :-Held, that this was not a receiving within the statute, the prisoner never having had the goods under his control, and the whole transaction being only inchoate. Reg. v. Wiley, 2 Den. Č. C. 37; 4 Cox, C. C. 412; T. & M. 367; 15 Jur. 134; 20 L. J., M. C. 4. It is not necessary to prove an actual manual possession of stolen goods, in order to sustain an indictment for receiving the goods, but it is sufficient if the goods are shewn to have been under the control of the person charged with receiving. Reg. v. Smith, Dears. C. C. 494; 1 Jur., N. S. 575; 24 L. J., M. C. 135; 6 Cox, C. C. 554. Stolen goods were found by the owner in the pockets of the thief; a policeman was sent for, who took the goods and subsequently returned them to the thief, and the owner then sent the latter to sell them where he had sold others; he accordingly sold them at the shop of D. D. was tried and convicted of receiving the goods knowing them to have been stolen :— Held, that the conviction was wrong, as the facts did not constitute a re A prisoner admits having bought an article, which is subsequently found in his house; that is sufficient evidence for a jury to convict of receiving of stolen goods within 7 & 8 ceiving without proof of an actual receipt, or that he had ever been at the house from before the purchase to the time of the charge. Reg. v. Matthews, T. & M. 337; 1 Den. C. C. 596; 14 Jur. 513. Two men, having stolen some fowls, put them into a sack and carried them into the house of the prisoner's father at about half-past four o'clock in the morning. After remaining in the house about ten minutes, the two men were seen to come out at a back door, one of them carrying the sack, and the Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 54. Reg. v. Dolan, Dears. C. C. 436; 3 C. L. R. 295; 1 Jur., N. S. 72; 24 L. J., M. C. 59; 6 Cox, C. C. 449. Á. was indicted for feloniously receiving a watch and a hat. It was proved that a policeman, in consequence of information received from B. (the thief),went to a room in a lodging-house where A. slept, and in a box in that room found the hat. A. admitted that the hat had been brought there by B., but denied all knowledge of the watch. On the following day A. was taken into the prisoner, with the knowledge that the goods had been stolen, agreed upon the price and paid the balance:-Held, that he was properly convicted of receiving the goods knowing them to be stolen. Reg. v. Woodward, L. & C. 122; 9 Cox, C. C. 95; 8 Jur., N. S. 104; 31 L. J., M. C. 91; 10 W. R. 298; 5 L. T., N. S. 686. custody, and he then told the police- | principal felon afterwards met, when man that he knew where the watch was, but did not like to say anything about it before the people of the house. A. then took the policeman to a place where he said the watch was, but it was not found there, but he afterwards sent a boy for the watch, and on the boy bringing the watch to A., he gave it to the policeman:- Held, that there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury. Reg. v. Hobson, Dears. C. C. 400. It is not necessary, to constitute a receiving of stolen goods, that the person indicted should have had manual possession of the goods; but directing a servant to dispose of them, as by pawning or otherwise, will be sufficient to support the charge. Stolen property was brought by the thief into A.'s shop; A., with guilty knowledge, called a servant and directed her to take the stolen goods to the pawn office and " pawn them for the girl" (the thief). A.'s servant did so accordingly, and brought back the money, which she handed to the thief in her mistress's presence. A. never had manual possession of either the goods or the money:-Held, that this amounted to a receiving by A. of the stolen property. Reg. v. Miller, 6 Cox, C. C. 353. - A prisoner was convicted of feloniously receiving stolen goods under the following circumstances :The goods were stolen, and sent by the thief in a parcel by railway, addressed to the prisoner. A policeman belonging to the railway company, from information he had received, examined the parcel at the railway station at the place of its destination, and stopped it. It was called for by one of the thieves on the day of its arrival, and refused to him. A porter of the company, the next day, by the direction of the policeman, took it to a house which the thief who had called for it designated, and it was there received by the prisoner :-Held, that the conviction was wrong, as the goods had ceased to be stolen goods, within the statute, at the time of the receipt by the prisoner. Reg. v. Schmidt, 10 Cox, C. C. 172; 1 L. R., C. C. 15; 12 Jur., N. S. 149; 35 L. J., M. C. 94; 14 W. R. 286; 13 L. T., N. S. 679. W., T. and the prisoner were indicted, W. and T. in one count for embezzling goods, and in another for stealing them; the prisoner for (c) Joint Receivers. receiving the goods knowing them By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 94, to have been stolen. The jury" if upon the trial of any two or found W. guilty of embezzlement, more persons indicted for jointly acquitted T., and found the prisoner" receiving any property it shall be guilty of receiving:-Held, that the "proved that one or more of such conviction of the prisoner was right. 'persons separately received any Reg. v. Frampton, Dears. & B. C." part or parts of such property, it C. 585; 4 Jur., N. S. 566; 27 L. J.," shall be lawful for the jury to conM. C. 229; 8 Cox, C. C. 16. vict, upon such indictment, such Stolen goods were delivered by a "of the said persons as shall be thief to the wife of the prisoner in" proved to have received any part his absence; she paid 6d. on account, or parts of such property." (Forbut the amount to be paid was not mer provision, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, then fixed. The prisoner and the s. 14.) 66 Two or more persons may be indicted jointly for receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, though each successively received the whole of the same at different times, and it makes no difference whether the receipt was direct from the felon or from an intermediate person. Reg. v. Reardon or Rearden, 1 L. R., C. C. 31; 12 Jur., N. S. 476; 35 L. J., M. C. 171; 14 W. R. 663; 14 L. T., N. S. 449. If two are charged jointly with receiving stolen goods, a joint act of receiving must be proved. Proof that one received in the absence of the other, and afterwards delivered to him, will not suffice. Rex v. Messingham, 1 M. C. C. 257. A. received goods from B. (who was the servant of C.) under colour of a pretended sale:-Held, that the fact of his having received such goods with knowledge that B. had no authority to sell, and that he was in fact defrauding his master, was sufficient evidence to support an indictment for larceny against A. jointly with B. Reg. v. Hornby, 1 C. & K. 305-Coltman. D. and G. were charged with jointly receiving stolen goods. The evidence was, that D. first received the goods on the road between B. and S.; and that subsequently G. received a portion of them at S.:Held, that the evidence as to the separate act of receiving by G. was improperly admitted, and that the indictment was satisfied by the proof of the receiving by D. Reg. v. Dovey, 15 Jur. 230; 20 L. J., M. C. 105; 4 Cox, C. C. 428--C. C. R. Plea by one prisoner, indicted singly for receiving stolen goods, of autrefois acquit, under an indictment against him and four others, on which one was convicted, and the prisoner and the three others were acquitted, is good. Rex v. Dann, 1 M. C. C. 424. Where A., knowing that goods have been stolen, directs B., his servant, to receive them into his premFISH. DIG.--22. ises, and B., in pursuance of that direction, afterwards receives them in A.'s absence, B. knowing that they have been stolen, they may be jointly indicted for receiving them. Reg. v. Parr. 2 M. & Rob. 346Maule. Two were convicted under a count charging them with receiving goods knowing them to have been stolen, upon proof that they were present, aiding and abetting a third receiver, who was found in actual possession of the box containing the goods, but the two former never had actual possession of the box: Held, that the conviction was right. Reg. v. Rogers, 37 L. J., M. C. 83-C. Č. R. (d) Husband and wife. A wife cannot be convicted of feloniously receiving goods stolen by her husband. Reg. v. Brooks, Dears. C. C. 184; 17 Jur. 400; 22 L. J., M. C. 121; 6 Cox, C. C. 148. A wife, jointly with her husband, cannot be convicted of receiving stolen goods. Reg. v. Mathews, T. & M. 337; 1 Den. C. C. 596; 14 Jur. 513. Where both were found guilty on a joint indictment, the conviction of the husband affirmed, of the wife quashed. Ib. Husband and wife were jointly indicted for receiving goods, knowing them to have been stolen. The jury found both guilty, and that the wife received the goods without the control or knowledge of, and apart from her husband, and that he afterwards adopted his wife's receipt :-Held, that the conviction against the husband could not be sustained. Reg. v. Dring, Dears. & B. C. C. 329; 3 Jur., N. S. 1132; 7 Cox, C. C. 382. But a husband may be convicted of feloniously receiving property which his wife has stolen voluntarily and without any constraint on his part, if he receives it, knowing that she has stolen it. Reg. v. |