5 See a difference of opinion upon this subject in Aickles's case.....390 6 See also Madan's case..............74 7 A pardon not only remits the punishment, but restores the convict to his plenam et liberam legem, Reilly's case .........455 4 case.......... of administration to a seaman's effects, is a capital offence......327 In an indictment on this statute it must be proved, that the prisoner is the same person who took the oath, Rex v. Thomas Brady......327 5 Taking a false oath in Doctors' Commons, for the purpose of ob8 A pardon restores a person containing a marriage license, is an ofvicted on the 31 Geo. II. c. 10. for fence indictable in the courts of taking a false oath to obtain probate of a seaman's will, to his competency; common law, Joseph Alexander's ..........63 for a pardon not only clears the offence itself, but all disabilities in- 6 In an indictment for perjury at cident to it, T. Reilley's case...454 common law, the words "falsely, maliciously, wickedly, and cor"ruptly," imply "wilfully;" but on the 5 Eliz. c. 9. it must be expressly laid to have been wilfully committed, Cox's case............71 Perjury may be assigned on an oath, by which the party does not swear positively, but only that he believes the fact he attests to be true, Pedley's case ..242 PAUPER. I Where an allowance is made to a pauper weekly, it is due at the beginning of the week, Fearnley's case PERJURY. .426 7 1 On an indictment for perjury in an John Morris's case. 2 The law of this case confirmed by Lord Ellenborough, in Mich. Term 51 Geo. III. Rex v. Benson, 2 Camp. 508 3 By 31 Geo. II. c. 10. s. 24. to take a false oath in order to obtain letters 9 If A. be convicted of false swearing, and B. be afterwards indicted for the subornation, the record of A.'s conviction is not sufficient to shew his guilt, but it must be again regularly proved before B. can be convicted, Macdaniel's case, 455, notis. An indictment for perjury, laying the offence to have been committed "at the Guildhall of the city of London," is bad, Harris's case, 800 PERSON. By 48 Geo. III. c. 129. the offence of stealing property from the person of another without such a degree of force as will amount to robbery, is substituted instead of the capital offence of stealing privily from the person by 8 Eliz. c. 4. which is repealed........................444-1047 2 This statute extends the offence to aiders and abettors, which 8 Eliz. did not, Rex v. Pearce.........1046 PERSONATING. 1 By 31 Geo. II. c. 22. s. 77. (which extends as well to stocks and funds thereafter to be established, as to those then established,) if any person shall personate any proprietor of stock in the public funds, thereby transferring or endeavouring to transfer the stock, or thereby receiving or endeavouring to receive the money as if he were the proprietor thereof, shall be guilty of felony, without Clergy.........434 2 To obtain and indorse a dividend warrant at the Bank in the name of a stockholder, is personating a proprietor, and thereby endeavouring to receive the dividend, although no attempt whatever be made to receive the money at the pay-office, Francis Parr's case........ .....434 3 See also Brady's case............327 4 If a female servant procure a man to personate her master, and in that character to solemnize a marriage with her for the purpose of afterwards raising a specious title to the property of her master, it is a conspiracy for which the parties may be indicted, Robinson and Taylor's case....................... POSSESSION. ...37 manual possession is parted with, Hudson v. Hudson.............. .522 3 But if the bare possession only be delivered, the question will be, whether the delivery was by way of charge, or as a general bailment, or for some special purpose, Walsh's 1054 4 case......... Thus if a person sell a horse to another, and deliver it to the purchaser upon credit, and he ride away with it, it is no felony; for the owner having given credit, parted with his property in the horse, Justin Harvey's case467 5 So if several sharpers inveigle one to bet with them, and, after suffering him to win, contrive to strip him of a large sum on the event of a bet, if he parted with the property under an idea that it had been fairly won, it is no felony, though the Jury find it to have been a preconcerted scheme to get his money, Nicholson's case....610 6 So where the prisoner, with intent 1 In larceny the question always is, whether the prosecutor intended to part with the property, or only with 7 the manual custody of the thing delivered; for if he parted with the property by whatever fraudulent means he was induced to give the credit, it is not felony, Walsh's case, 1054 2 If the property be not parted with, the right of possession will follow the property, although the to defraud, ordered a tradesman to send him goods to be paid for on delivery, and afterwards gave the servant who brought them, BILLS in payment which were good for nothing, it is no larceny; the owner's servant (though his master did not intend to give the prisoner credit,) having parted with the property by accepting such payment as was offered by the prisoner, Park's case .........614 So where a person giving credit to the servant of a neighbour, who falsely pretended that her mistress wanted silver for half a guinea, which she would send in return, gave her the silver with which she ran away; for it was a loan of the silver upon the faith that the amount would be repaid, and so the property was parted with, C. Coleman's case, 303 9 Forin ring-dropping cases, if the person duped take the ring and deposit money, or goods as a security that he will return it on receiving his proportion of its supposed value, and the ring-dropper convert the money or goods, they are feloniously taken from the possession of the owner, Patch's case.........238 10 So if a man hire a horse for a day to go to a particular place, promising to return it in the evening, but instead of so doing he goes immediately to another place and feloniously sells it, the delivery does not dispossess the owner of the property, Rex v. Pear....... ....212 11 So the delivery of a post-chaise to a person who pretends to hire it for the purpose of making a tour, and does not return it for a year, and then, on being apprehended, gives no account of what has become of it, does not alter the ownership, Semple's case...420 12 The possession to constitute larceny must be a peaceable possession, Mrs. Phipoe's case........324 13 The owner of a bank-note does not part with his right of possession of it by inclosing it in a letter and delivering it to a letter-carrier to carry as directed, Hassel's case....4 14 A tradesman does not part with legal possession of property left with a customer to look at, if no bargain has been made for the sale of it, although the price is mentioned, Sharpless and Greatrix's case.....92 15 And of course property is not parted with by a tradesman delivering goods to a customer in his shop to look at, but who instead of purchasing runs away with them, Chiffer's case....... .......526 16 If the person to whom goods are delivered has but the bare charge or custody of them, the legal possession remains in the owner, as a shepherd of his master's sheep, a butler of his master's plate, &c.1056 17 So where goods are delivered for a bare special use as goods delivered to a guest at an inn, or yarn or silk delivered by a throwster to his servant to be worked up in his house, Silk Throwster's case .....252, whose hands the ring had been placed, should deliver the ring to her as a security, that he would bring her the next morning the 100. back again, together with 1201. more, as her half of the value of the ring; and he went off with the 1007. the ring not being worth 5s.; it was held a felonious taking from the possession of the prosecutrix; for her delivery of the 100%. to him was on the particular condition, that he was to restore it the next morning, Watson's case..........640 23 For the delivery must be with intention to part with the property before the owner can be dispossessed of it; and therefore, where, upon an agreement with the prisoner, to discount a bill, it was delivered into his hands to satisfy himself of its goodness; but the owner not intending to trust him with it without receiving the money, sent his clerk to follow the prisoner to the 1 place where the money for it was to be paid, and directed him not to leave the prisoner without the money; but the prisoner contrived to elude the vigilance of the clerk, and to run away with the bill; this was held felony, for the owner had not parted with the property, Aickles's case....... ..294 24 So if the owner send goods by his servant, to be delivered to A. and B. fraudulently procure the delivery of them to himself, he is guilty of felony, in taking them away, for the owner had not parted with the property of them, Wilkin's . 26 The right of possession is not changed by a clerk, who had the intire management of his master'scash concerns, taking a bill from the bill-drawer to which he had access, and, of course, the fraudulent conversion of it is larceny, Chipchase's case..................699 Stealing money received by a servant, on account of his master, but not put into the possession of the master, is not larceny at common law, for it never was properly in the possession of the master, Bazeley's case....... 835 27 28 Same point, Waites's case..........28 29 Same point, Bull's case........ 84 30 But now, by 39 Geo. 3. c. 85. the possession of the servant is the possession of the master, (for which see embezzlement,) Bazeley's case, 835 2 A POST-OFFICE. If a sorter of letters embezzle a letter containing a bank-note, or other chose in action mentioned in the 2 Geo. II. c. 25. he may be indicted for stealing the bank-note, although the letter was entrusted to his care, as a servant of the postoffice, for it is like a carrier breaking the bale he is entrusted to carry, Hassel's case..... An indictment for larceny to the value of 40s. committed in the PostOffice, may lay it to be the dwellinghouse of the Post-Masters General, Hassel's case ............................... .1 By 7 Geo. III. c. 50. s. 1. re-enacting more largely the provisions of 5 Geo. III. c. 25. s. 17. it is enacted, that if any deputy, clerk, agent, letter-carrier, post-boy, or rider, or any other officer or person whatsoever employed in receiving, stamping, sorting, charging, carrying, conveying, or delivering letters, or in any other business relating to the post-office, shall se crete, embezzle, or destroy any letter, &c. which they shall be intrusted with, containing any banknote, bank-post bill, &c. or by 42 Geo. III. c. 81. any part or parts thereof, or shall steal or take the same out of any letter that shall come to his possession, he shall be guilty of felony without the benefit of clergy......................3, notis. 4 A draft purporting to be drawn in London, but actually drawn at Maidstone, without a stamp, contrary to 31 Geo. III. c. 25. s. 4. is not such a draft for the payment of money, as will make a servant of the post-office who steals it out of a letter intrusted to his care, liable under 7 Geo. III. c. 50. s. 1. Pooley's case.. .........887 5 The security contained in any such letter may be given in evidence to prove the stealing of the letter, Pooley's case....... ..............900 6 The paid notes of a country bank are securities within the meaning of the act, and therefore if a facer of letters embezzle a letter containing such notes it is a capital offence, although they have not been reissued, Ranson's case............1090 7 By the 9 Ann. c. 10. s. 40. to open, detain, or delay any letter delivered into any post-office or receivinghouse, or into the hands of any letter-carrier, before delivery to the person to whom it is directed, except by warrant under the hand of THE SECRETARY OF STATE, incurs a forfeiture of twenty pounds........3. 8 To convict a person employed by the Post-Office on these statutes, it is not necessary that he should have taken the oath required by 9 Ann. c. 10..................3, ibid. 9 A prisoner indicted on the 7 Geo. III. c. 50. as a charger and sorter of letters, and acquitted because it appeared he was a sorter only, cannot 11 A stamper of letters who secretes letters not containing the securities mentioned in 2 Geo. II. c. 25. but who does not open the letters but detains them merely for the purpose of defrauding the post-office of the postage, is not indictable under 7 Geo. III. c. 50. but he may be indicted on the 5 Geo. III. c. 25. s. 19, Sloper's case............ ...................81 12 So where a letter-carrier secreted a post-paid letter, with intention, as the Jury found, to deliver the letter, and to keep the postage, it was held not to be a stealing within 7 Geo. III. c. 50. s. 2. Howatt's case, S3, notis. 13 And now by 42 Geo. III. c. 81. the offences in the 5 Geo. III. c. 25. s. 19. are again made felony,83, notis. 14 To secrete a letter containing money, is not an offence within the statute 7 Geo. III. c. 50. but the offender may be indicted for the larceny of the money at common law; for the statute only applies to the securities for money therein described, Skutt's case ..........106 15 By 7 Geo. III. c. 50. s. 2. “ if any person shall steal and take from or out of any post-office, or house or place for the receipt or delivery of letters or packets sent or to be sent by the post, any letter or letters, he shall be guilty of a capital felony. But a servant of the postoffice, who commits this offence, is |