1

ARTICLE 352.

FRAUDULENT FALSE ACCOUNTING.

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

138 & 39 Vict. c. 24, s. 1.

CHAPTER XLII.

RECEIVING.

ARTICLE 353.

RECEIVING DEFINED.

1A 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 receipt 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, 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 For these reasons I have not attempted to turn the case into an illustration. The case of R. v. M. Smith, Dear. 494, is somewhat similar. See, too, R. v. Hill, 1 Den. 453. In R. v. Miller, 6 Cox, C. C. 353, a person was found guilty of receiving who had never had possession of the goods except by a servant.

case.

Illustrations.

(1.) 'A's wife in A's absence receives stolen potatoes knowing them to be stolen. The jury find 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.) 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 354.

RECEIVING PROPERTY ULAWFULLY 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, as a maximum punishment, 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):—

(a.) 5 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 324, clause (b.), knowing the same to have been

2 R. v. Woodward, L. & C. 122. A husband can receive from a wife who steals on her own account in his absence: R. v. M'Athey, L. & C. 230.

3 R. v. Dolan, Dear. 436.

♦ R. v. Schmidt, L. R. 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.

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

1

feloniously stolen, taken, embezzled, or secreted, and to have been sent or to have been intended to be sent by the post; or (b.) 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 (2 but not by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116), knowing the same to have been so dealt with; or

(c.) 3 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.) 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.

1 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 91, S. W.

2 Which makes stealing by a partner, &c., felony, see supra, Art. 301: R. v. Smith, L. R. 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, 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, Bell, C. C. 34, Art. 329, Illustration (1).

324 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 95, S. W.

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

CHAPTER XLIII.

'FORGERY IN GENERAL.

ARTICLE 355.

DEFINITION OF FORGERY-INTENT TO DEFRaud.

FORGERY is making a false document, as defined in Article 356, with intent to defraud.

An intent to defraud is presumed to exist if it appears that at the time when the false document was made there was in existence a specific person, ascertained or unascertained, capable of being defrauded thereby, and this presumption is not rebutted by proof that the offender took or intended to take measures to prevent such person from being defrauded in fact; nor by the fact that he had, or thought he had, a right to the thing to be obtained by the false document.

The presumption may be rebutted by proof that at the time when the false document was made there was no person who could be reasonably supposed by the offender to be capable of being defrauded thereby; but it is not necessarily rebutted by proof that there was no person who could in fact be defrauded thereby.

It is uncertain whether, in the absence of any evidence as to the existence of any person who can be defrauded by a false document, an intent to defraud will or will not be presumed from the mere making of the document.

An intent to deceive the public or particular persons, but not to commit a particular fraud or specific wrong upon any particular person, is not an intent to defraud within the meaning of this Article.

Illustrations.

(1) A makes a false receipt, the effect of which, if the receipt were genuine, would be to render B accountable to C for a larger sum than B has in fact received on C's account. A is presumed to have intended to

13 Hist. Cr. Law, 180-188

2 R. v. Boardman, 2 Moo. & Rob. 147.