value in his hands, it could not be called his goods and chattels; nor was it a larceny of the notes obtained by the cheque, for the prosecutor never had possession of them but by the hands of the prisoner. R. v. Benjamin Walsh, R. & R. 216. But in a more recent case, where the prisoner's master gave him a cheque upon his banker, to pay to a creditor, and the prisoner instead of doing so, applied it to his own use: being indicted for stealing the cheque, he was found guilty; and the judges held the conviction to be right. R. v. Metcalfe, Ry. & M. 433. R. v. Heath, 2 Mood. 38. Where a prisoner was indicted for stealing a cheque of the prosecutor, and in one count it was described as an order for the payment of 137. 98. 7d., and in another as "one piece of paper of the value of one penny ;" and it was objected that the cheque being issued at a greater distance than fifteen miles from the banker's, was not a valuable security by stat. 55 G. 3, c. 184, and therefore the prisoner could not be convicted; but the judges at the criminal appeal court held that at all events he could be convicted on the second count, for stealing the piece of paper. R. v. Perry, 1 Car. & K. 725. See R. v. Yates, Ry. & M. 170. R. v. Frampton, 2 Car. & K. 47. R. v. Rodway, 9 Car. & P. 784. So, where country bank notes, which were paid by the agent in London, were sent by him to the country bankers, by whom they were to be re-issued; on their way they were stolen by the prisoner; being apprehended and indicted, (the first count of the indictment stating the notes to be bank notes in the ordinary form, and the second, as certain pieces of paper with valuable stamps upon them :) the judges seemed to be of opinion that this could not be deemed a stealing of the notes, as it could not be said that the sums payable and secured thereby, were due and unsatisfied to the prosecutors; but they held that the prisoner was rightly convicted of stealing the paper and stamps. R. v. Clarke, R. & Ry. 181. R. v. Vyse, Ry. & M. 218, S. P. But in another case, where it appeared that the prosecutor, in answer to an advertisement offering an advance of money upon loan, sent a letter to the address therein mentioned, stating his wish to borrow 5,000l., and the prisoner called upon him in consequence of it; the prisoner offered to obtain the loan for him, upon his acceptance of ten bills of exchange for 5001. each, and he produced ten 68. stamps, which the prosecutor accepted in blank, and which the prisoner took away with him, and afterwards had bills drawn upon them for 5001. each, by a person in concert with him of the name of Clipold: he was afterwards indicted for this, as for a larceny of ten bills of exchange for 5007. each, of ten pieces of paper, each stamped with a 68. stamp, and of ten pieces of paper, with the words "accepted F. Dugdale Astley, payable at Messrs. Praed & Co., 189, Fleetstreet, London," upon each: Littledale and Bosanquet, JJ., and Bolland, B., held that the prisoner could not be convicted

upon this evidence; when these acceptances were obtained by him, they were not bills of exchange, orders or securities for money, neither drawer's name, sum, or date being upon them, and of course they were of no precise or definite value; nor could the prisoner be convicted on those counts which described the acceptances as ten pieces of paper with stamps on them, &c., because the stamps never belonged to the prosecutor, but to the prisoner. R. v. Minter Hart, 6 Car. & P. 106. But in all cases where there is a doubt whether the instrument stolen was at the time a valuable security within the meaning of the Act, and the paper on which it is written or printed is the property of the prosecutor, it will be prudent to add a count for stealing" one piece of paper of the goods and chattels of the said C. D.," as for a larceny at common law, as in Perry's case, ante, p. 393.

2. It must appear that the bill, note, or order was such as is mentioned in the indictment. If it be in the possession of the prosecutor, it should be produced, but there is no necessity to prove it; but if it be not in his possession, he may give secondary evidence of it, without giving the defendant notice to produce it. See ante, p. 137. If produced, it must appear to be duly stamped, for otherwise it is not a valuable security within the meaning of the Act. R. v. Yates, Ry. & M. 170. And see R. v. Perry, ante, p. 393. And it must be proved that something remains due and unsatisfied to the prosecutor upon it. See ante, p. 392.

Where the indictment is for stealing "money," you may give in evidence the stealing of any note of the Bank of England or other bank, and it will support the indictment. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 18, ante, p. 90.

If there be a count at common law, as for stealing a piece of paper, as in Perry's case, it must appear in evidence to have been the property of the prosecutor. See Minter Hart's case, supra.

Stealing Writings relating to real Estate.

Indictment.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord- —, unlawfully did steal, take, and carry away, a certain deed of [grant] the property of C. D., the said deed being then evidence of [part of] the title of the said C. D. to a certain real estate called in which real estate the said C. D. then had and still hath a present

interest against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [The instrument may be described by any name, by which it is usually known. 14 & 15 Vict. e. 100, s. 5. In the indictment, it is sufficient to allege the thing stolen to be evidence of the title, or of part of the title, of the person, or of some one of the persons, having a present interest, whether legal or equitable, in the real estate to which the same relates, and to mention such real estate or some part thereof: and it shall not be necessary to allege the thing stolen to be of any value. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29,

s. 23.

Misdemeanor; transportation for seven years;— or such other punishment by fine or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 4], or both, as the court shall award. G. 4, c. 29, ss. 23, 21.

7&8

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove―

1. A larceny of the deed or instrument mentioned in the indictment, as in ordinary cases. See ante, pp. 371, 369.

2. That it was evidence of [part of] the title of C. D.'s real estate mentioned in the indictment. This may be done by putting the deed itself in evidence, if it be in possession of the prosecutor; or if not, then by giving secondary evidence of its contents, which may be done without giving the defendant notice to produce it. Ante, p. 137. And evidence must then be given, showing how the prosecutor claims the estate, so as to show that the deed in question is evidence of his title.

3. That C. D., at the time of the larceny, had a present interest in the estate, to which the deed relates. The statute says, a present" interest, which I understand to mean possession or perception of the rents or profits, or the immediate right thereto, either in the prosecutor or his trustee, in contradistinction to an estate in remainder, &c.

But by stat. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 24, no person shall be liable to be convicted of the above offence by any evidence whatever, in respect of any act done by him, if he shall previously to his being indicted have disclosed such act on oath, in consequence of any compulsory process of any court of law or equity, in any action, suit, or proceeding which shall have

been bona fide instituted by any party aggrieved, or if he shall have disclosed the same in any examination or deposition before any commissioners of bankrupt.

to wit.

Stealing, destroying, or concealing a Will.

Indictment.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen upon their oath present, that A. B., on the

day of in the year of our Lord unlawfully did steal, take, and carry away ["steal, or for any fraudulent purpose destroy or conceal" a certain will of one C. D. [" will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument"]: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [It is not necessary in the indictment to allege that the will, &c., is the property of any person, or of any value. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 22. But if the indictment be for destroying or concealing the will, the fraudulent purpose should be set out. R. v. Morris, 9 Car. & P. 89.

Misdemeanor; transportation for seven years;—or such other punishment by fine or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 4] or both, as the court shall award. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 22.

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove a larceny of the will, as in ordinary cases. See ante, pp. 371, 369. Or if the indictment be for destroying or concealing the will, prove the destruction or concealment, and prove circumstances from which the jury may infer that it was done for a fraudulent purpose. It is immaterial, in either case, whether the will related to real or personal estate, or to both, or whether it was stolen, &c., during the life time or after the death of the testator.

By stat. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 24, no person shall be liable to be convicted of the above offence, by any evidence whatever, in respect of any act done by him, if he shall previously to his being indicted have disclosed such act on oath, in consequence of any compulsory process of any court of law or equity, in any action, suit, or proceeding which shall have been bona fide instituted by any party aggrieved, or if he shall have disclosed the same in any examination or deposition before any commissioners of bankrupt.

Stealing, obliterating, or destroying a Record, &c.

Indictment.

The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the day of in the year of our Lord , unlawfully did steal, take and carry away ["If any person shall steal,-or shall for any fraudulent purpose take from its place of deposit for the time being, or from any person having the lawful custody thereof, or shall unlawfully and maliciously obliterate, injure, or destroy"] a certain record and judgment roll, ["any record, writ, return, panel, process, interrogatory, deposition, affidavit, rule, order, or warrant of attorney, or any original document whatsoever, of or belonging to any court of record, or relating to any matter civil or criminal, begun, depending or terminated in any such court,"-" or any bill, answer, interrogatory, deposition, affidavit, order, or decree, or any original document whatsoever, of or belonging to any court of equity, or relating to any cause or matter begun, depending, or terminated in any such court"]: against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity. [The instrument may be described by any name by which it is usually known. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 5. It is not necessary to allege that the article in respect of which the offence was committed, was the property of any person, or of any value. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 21.

Misdemeanor; transportation for seven years;—or such other punishment by fine or imprisonment [with or without hard labour, s. 4] or both, as the court shall award. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 21.

Evidence.

To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove a larceny of the record, &c., as in ordinary cases. Before this statute, upon an indictment for stealing one roll of parchment, being a record of the court of Common Pleas, the judges held that as the record in question did not concern the realty, stealing the parchment on which it was written was larceny, and a felony. R. v. Walker, Ry. § M. 155.