force, or other acts of the prisoner at the time: that it may be implied from the nature of the force used, appears from the words of the statute-"shall with menaces or by force demand," &c. Where the prisoner inveigled the prosecutor into a house, chained him, put a rope round his neck, fastened his feet to the floor by ropes, and then placed two sheets of paper, with pen and ink, before him, and required him on one sheet to write a cheque upon his banker for a sum of money, and on the other a letter requesting some deeds to be delivered to the bearer: this was holden by Patteson, J., not to be an offence within the former statute upon this subject, 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 6 (which was in the same words as this, varying only in the punishment), for the prosecutor never had the peaceable possession of the cheque or request note, so as to be able to do what he pleased with them, which is as necessary in this case as in robbery. R. v. Edwards, 6 Car. & P. 521. See R. v. Phipoe, ante, p. 423. The demand must appear to have been made upon the prosecutor. See R. v. Dunkely et al., supra. See ante, 3. The intent to steal the property demanded. p. 381. This must be presumed from the words or acts of the prisoner, or from the other circumstances of the case. If the the prisoner had no fair pretence or bonâ fide claim to the thing demanded; or if the circumstances of the case be such that if the prisoner had succeeded in obtaining from the prosecutor the thing demanded, he would have been guilty of a robbery or lar. ceny: the jury may fairly presume the intent to be as laid in the indictment. But if, from the facts proved, it appear that the prisoner would not have been guilty of a robbery or larceny, had he succeeded in obtaining the thing demanded,—in that case the jury should acquit him. See Edward's case, supra. Letter demanding Money with Menaces. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their day of to wit. oath present, that A. B., on the in the year of our Lord —, knowingly and feloniously did send ["send or deliver "] to C. D. a certain letter ["letter or writing"] directed to the said C. D., by the name and description of Mr. C. D., demanding money [or a certain chattel, to wit, —, or a certain valuable security, to wit, ”] of and from the said C. D., with menaces, and without any reasonable or probable cause; and which said letter is as follows, that is to say: [here set out the letter verbatim.]: 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 venue may be laid either in the county where the letter was received, or in that from which it was sent. Ante, p. 74. The letter must be set out. Lloyd's case, 2 East, P. C. 1122. Felony; transportation for life, or for not less than seven years; or imprisonment, [with or without hard labour, s. 4] for not more than four years, and, if a male, to be once, twice, or thrice publicly or privately whipped if the court shall think fit. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 8. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. The sending of the letter containing the demand and menaces, as stated in the indictment. For this purpose he must produce the letter, and prove that he received it. It must then be proved that the prisoner sent or delivered it; for proof merely that it is in his handwriting, even by his own confession, will not be sufficient, R. v. Howe, 7 Car. & P. 268, without proof of circumstances from which the jury may fairly presume the sending by him also. Proof that he dropped a letter, directed to the prosecutor, into the prosecutor's premises, where it was likely to be found either by the prosecutor himself, or by some person who would deliver it to him, was holden by the judges to be a sending of the letter. R. v. Wagstaff, R. & Ry. 398. So, proof that he left the letter at a gate on the road near the prosecutor's house, where it was found by a person passing, who forwarded it to the prosecutor, and being left in the steward's room, he opened it and gave it to a constable, and the constable showed it to the prosecutor: the judges held this to be good evidence to go to the jury of a sending to the prosecutor; if a man leave a letter in any place, with intent that it shall be found, and ultimately delivered to the party for whom he intends it, that is a sending of it to the party. R. v. Grimwade, 1 Car. & K. 592. So, proof that the prisoner sent it to another person, with intent that such person should send or deliver it to the prosecutor, will support the allegation that he sent it to the prosecutor. By the judges in R. v. Paddle, R. & Ry. 484. See R. v. Jones, 2 Car. § K. 398. It must be proved also that he knowingly did so, that is to say, that he knew the contents of the letter. If the letter be in the handwriting of the prisoner, of course it will be conclusive proof; but if not, evidence must be given from which the jury may presume it. Where it was proved that the defendant gave the letter, sealed, to another person to put into the post, who put it in, and it was delivered to the prosecutor: Hotham, B., put it to the jury, among other questions, whether, from the prisoner's delivering the letter to the other person to put in the post, he did not know its contents, and they answered in the affirmative, and found the defendant guilty and the judges afterwards held the conviction to be right. Girdwood's case, 2 East, P. C. 1120. 1 Leach, 169. 2. The letter being proved, must be read; and it will be for the jury to consider whether it contain, either expressly or impliedly, a demand, of and from the prosecutor, with menaces, and without any reasonable or probable cause, of the chattel, money, or valuable security mentioned in the indictment. It is not necessary that the letter should contain an express threat or menace; if the threat or menace can fairly be implied from it, it will be within the meaning of the statute. See R. v. Boucher, 4 Car. & P. 563. And other letters received by the prosecutor from the same party, before or after, may be given in evidence to explain anything ambiguous in the letter in question. Robinson's case, 2 East, P. C. 1110, 2 Leach, 869. But a letter referring in its terms to a sum of money in controversy between the prisoner and the prosecutor, which the latter had received, and the former insisted ought to be accounted for to him, was holden not to be a demand of money with menaces, within a former statute on this subject. Heming's case, 2 East, P. C. 116. So, a letter, offering for money to discover a conspiracy to destroy the property of the prosecutor, was holden not to be within the Act. R. v. Pickford, 4 Car. & P. 227. But the authority of this latter case has been much shaken by a recent case before the criminal appeal court, which was thus: upon an indictment on this section of the statute, it appeared that the prisoner wrote a letter to the prosecutors, who were bankers, in which after alluding to some former terms proposed by him, and to a "horrid catastrophe," which would not only stop their bank perhaps for ever, as the books would all be destroyed, as contemplated by the crackman or captain of "this horrid gang," he proceeded to point out a place where the bankers were to deposit a bag containing two hundred and fifty sovereigns, and concluded thus: "Let the money be lodged to-morrow (Saturday) morning by half-past eleven o'clock, but not one moment sooner, and all shall be well with you, but if I am at all deceived in any possible way, all must fall upon yourselves" the judges held this clearly to be a letter within the meaning of the Act; they were all of opinion that a letter asking money, and using expressions calculated to make the other person part with it against his will, under the impression that mischief will happen if the application for the money be not complied with, is just that sort of demand which the statute contemplated. R. v. Thomas Smith, 2 C. & K.882. 19 Law J. 80 m. Whether the letter, in its terms, impliedly contains menaces, is a question to be left to the jury. Id. Stealing from the Person. 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, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away from the person of C. D. certain money of the said C. D., and one gold watch of the goods and chattels of the said C. D.: 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. Felony; transportation for not more than fifteen years nor less than ten ;-or imprisonment, [with or without hard labour, s. 10] for not more than three years, 1 Vict. c. 87, s. 5,-the imprisonment solitary for any part of the time, but not more than one month at a time, or three months in the year. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. A larceny of the property stated in the indictment, or some of it, as directed ante, pp. 371, 369, except that the taking must be actual, and not merely constructive; and the carrying away must be, not that mere removal of the property, which is sufficient in the case of simple larceny, but an actual severance of it from the person of the prosecutor. Where it appeared that the prisoner drew a pocket book out of the inside breast-pocket of the prosecutor's coat, about an inch above the top of the pocket; but the prosecutor suddenly putting his hand up, the prisoner let go the book, whilst it was still about the person of the prosecutor, and the book fell back again into the pocket: the judges held the offence of stealing from the person to be incomplete; this would be a sufficient asportation in sim. ple larceny, but not so in larceny from the person. R. v. Wm. Thompson, Ry. & M. 78. So, where a thief was prevented from carrying off a purse, on account of some keys attached to the strings of it getting entangled in the owner's pocket, it was holden not to be a sufficient asportation. R. v. Wilkinson, 1 Hale, 508. 2 East, P. C. 556. 2. That the property was in the personal possession of the prosecutor at the time. Where a man went to bed with a prostitute, leaving his watch in his hat on a table, and she stole it whilst he was asleep, this was holden not to be a larceny from the person, but from the dwelling-house. R. v. Hamilton, 8 Car. & P. 49. And whether a taking, not actually from the person of the prosecutor, but in his presence, would be a stealing from the person, as in the case of robbery, has never been decided. Using Chloroform, for the purpose of committing a Felony. Indictment. The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that A. B., on the to wit. day of in the year of our Lord, unlawfully and feloniously did apply ["apply or administer, or attempt to apply or administer,"] certain chloroform ["any chloroform, laudanum, or other stupifying or overpowering drug, matter or thing"] to C. D., with intent thereby then to enable him the said A. B. [or one E. F.] to commit a felony ["with intent thereby to enable such offender or any other person to commit, or with intent to assist such offender or other person in committing, any felony"]: 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. [You may add a count stating the felony which was contemplated, but it does not seem to be necessary. If it be not certain that it was chloroform, you may add a count or counts stating it to be "a certain stupifying and overpowering drug and matter, to the jurors aforesaid unknown." Felony; transportation for life, or not less than seven years; or imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for not more than three years. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 19, s. 3. Evidence. To maintain this indictment, the prosecutor must prove 1. That the defendant applied or administered to him chloroform or other drug, as mentioned in the indictment. If the drug be not named, proof of its effect, showing that it was stupifying or overpowering, must be given. 2. The intent to commit a felony. Proof that whilst the prosecutor was so stupified or overpowered, a felony was committed, as that he had certain money in his pocket when the chloroform, &c., was applied, and that when he recovered |