defraud any such copartnership, shall and lawfully may in such indictment or indictments, notwithstanding as aforesaid, be laid or stated to have been committed against, or with intent to injure or defraud any one of the public officers, nominated as aforesaid, for the time being of such copartnership, and any offender or offenders may thereupon be lawfully convicted for any such forgery, fraud, crime, or offence; and that. in all other allegations, indictments, informations, or other proceedings of any kind whatsoever, in which it otherwise might or would have been necessary to state the names of the persons composing such copartnership, it shall and may be lawful and sufficient to state the name of any one of the public officers, nominated as aforesaid, for the time being of such copartnership; and the death, resignation, removal, or any act of such public officer, shall not abate or prejudice any such action, suit, indictment, information, prosecution, or other proceeding, commenced against or by or on behalf of such copartnership, but the same may be continued, prosecuted, and carried on in the name of any other of the public officers of such copartnership for the time being.'

It is not imperative upon the banking companies constituted under this Act to prosecute in the name of one of their public officers; thus it has been held in a case of forgery that they were not bound to allege an intent to defraud one of their public officers, but might lay the intent to be to defraud one of the shareholders by name and others,' under the 1 Wm. 4, c. 66, s. 28. (c) And where, on an indictment for stealing certain brasses, the property of P. Williams and others, which belonged to a colliery which was worked by the Dudley and West Bromwich Bank, and no registration of that company as a joint-stock banking company or of the appointment of any manager or public officer thereof was proved, but it was stated by a witness that P. Williams was one of the partners or shareholders in the bank, and that there were more than twenty partners, and that it was a jointstock banking company; it was objected that the property ought to have been laid in the public officer of the company under the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, s. 9, and Chaplain v. Milvain (d) was relied upon; but, upon a case reserved, it was held that the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 14, which expressly extends to all joint-stock companies, and which was passed after the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, was a sufficient authority for laying the property in one of the partners by name 'and others.' (e)

(c) R. v. Beard, 8 C. & P. 143, Coleridge, J. In R. v. Burgiss, 7 C. & P. 488, Littledale, J., had expressed great doubts on the point; but in R. v. James, 7 C. & P. 553, Patteson, J., had expressed an opinion that either the one mode or the other might be adopted. And it should seem that there is no doubt that an indictment laying property to belong to one member of such a company by name, and others,' would be good, especially as the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 14, extends to all joint stock companies,' ante, p. 24. C. S. G.

(d) 5 Exch. R. 61, where it was held that in an action against a shareholder the company are bound to sue in the name of one of their officers.

(e) R. v. Pritchard, L. & C. 34; 30 L. J. M. C. 169. This decision is in accordance with my note to the third edition, and settles the doubt in R. v. Carter, 1 Den., C. C. 65, whether in forgery the intent may be laid to defraud one of the shareholders and others. In the course of the argument, Pollock, C. B., said: "Suppose they are not registered, may anybody go and steal their property without being punished for it?' Blackburn, J., Granting all that you assume (i. e. that the company was carrying on their business legally), suppose more than six persons own a chattel, a horse for instance, and afterwards engage in business as bankers, would that alter the property in the horse?' In Bonar v. Mitchell, 5 Exch.

In an indictment for forgery it has been held sufficient to aver the intent to be to defraud R. B., then and there being one of the public officers for the time being of a certain copartnership of persons carrying on the trade and business of bankers in England, exceeding the number of six persons, and called the National Provincial Bank of England;' and that it is not necessary to aver that R. B. was nominated under the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46. (ƒ)

The return made to the Stamp Office under the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, is not the only mode of proving that a person is a public officer; that fact may be proved by other evidence. (g) An examined copy of the return is as good evidence as the return. (h)

The 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, was amended and continued by the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 96, and is further continued by the 3 & 4 Vict. c 111, (i) and sec. 2 of that Act enacts, that If any person or persons, being a member or members of any banking copartnership within the meaning of the said Act, or of any other banking copartnership consisting of more than six persons, formed under or in pursuance of an Act passed in the third and fourth years of the reign of King William the Fourth, intituled "An Act for giving to the corporation of the governor and company of the Bank of England certain privileges for a limited period, under certain conditions," (j) shall commit any fraud, forgery, crime, or offence against or with intent to injure or defraud any such copartnership, such member or members shall be liable to indictment, information, prosecution, or other proceeding in the name of any of the officers for the time being of any such copartnership, in whose name any action or suit might be lawfully brought against any member or members of any such copartnership for every such fraud, forgery, crime, or offence, and may thereupon be lawfully convicted, as if such person or persons had not been or was or were not a member or members of such copartnership, any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.'

R. 415, it was held that a plea that a company had not made a return to the Stamp Office in pursuance of the statute was bad; and Alderson, B., in answer to an argument that these companies were bound to observe the conditions imposed on them by the Act, said, according to such an argument it would be a good defence to a charge of larceny against a person for having stolen the company's goods, that they had not made any sufficient return as required by the statute. If the company were to make any single mistake in the course of twenty years, they would lose the right of suing in the mode given them by the Act;' and Pollock, C. B., thought that the penalty imposed by sec. 14, was intended to cure these omissions; and Alderson, B., said that it was clear that the section was only directory. C. S. G.

(f) R. v. Beard, supra. So it has been held in an action brought in the name of a public officer of such a company, that it is not necessary to allege in the declaration that he is a member of the company, that he is resident in England, or that he has been duly registered as required by sec. 4; but that it is sufficient to allege that he has

been duly nominated and appointed, and now is one of the public officers of the said company according to the force, form, and effect of the said Act.of Parliament.' Spiller v. Johnson, 6 M. and W. 570. So it has been held sufficient to state in the declaration that the plaintiff is the manager of a certain joint-stock copartnership, established for the purpose of banking, and that he has been duly named and appointed as the nominal plaintiff on behalf of the copartnership under the provisions of the statute, without expressly stating that he has been named as manager, or that the copartnership has been established under the provisions of the Act. Christie v. Peart, 7 M. & W. 491.

(g) Edwards v. Buchanan, 3 B. & Ad. 788. R. v. Beard, supra. See Bosanquet v. Woodford, 5 Q. B. 310. Prescott ". Buffery, 1 C. B. 41. Steward v. Dunn, 12

M. & W. 655.

The prisoner was convicted of the embezzlement of three sums of money on an indictment, in which one class of counts described him as clerk of Teather and others, and another as clerk of Teather, 'one of the public officers of the Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Company.' The prisoner was employed as clerk by a banking company established under the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46. A return, as required by sec. 4, had been made, and was proved by a certificate under sec. 6; in this return the true name of the copartnership was stated to be The Carlisle and Cumberland Joint Stock Bank,' the names or firms of the banks established or to be established by the copartnership were stated to be 'Carlisle and Cumberland Bank' at Carlisle, at Wigton, and at Appleby, and Teather was described as a partner and one of the public officers. The manager of the bank proved that the usual and only name employed by the copartnership in their dealings was The Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Company,' and they were described by the same name in a bond of the prisoner to the company, which was in evidence. The prisoner at the time of the transaction was a shareholder or partner in the company. It was objected, 1, that there was a variance, as the return proved the true name to be different from that laid in the indictment, 2, that the indictment could only be in the name of an officer nominated as mentioned in the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46. (k) But, on a case reserved, the majority of the judges were of opinion that the company described in the register were the same that had appointed Teather, acting under the name of the Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Company to the world, and so admitted by the prisoner in his bond; and that there was no variance. (1)

Friendly Societies - By 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60 (the Friendly Societies Act, 1875), s. 16, sub-sec. 5, in all legal proceedings whatsoever concerning any such (m) property the same shall be stated to be the property of the trustees for the time being, in their proper names as trustees for the society or branch (as the case may be) without further description. By the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, (56 & 57 Vict. c. 39), s. 21, 'the registration of a society shall render it a body corporate by the name described in the acknowledgment of registry by which it may sue and be sued, with perpetual succession and a common seal, and with limited liability; and shall vest in the society all property for the time being vested in any person in trust for the society; and all legal proceedings pending by or against the trustees of any such society may be prosecuted by or against the society in its registered name without abatement.' (n) The following cases were decided under the repealed Friendly Societies Act: The indictment charged the prisoner with stealing a ten-pound promissory note, the property of W. Shildrick. Shildrick was treasurer of a friendly society at Cambridge. The prisoner was clerk and trustee of the same

(k) A third objection was, that the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 96, was not continued by the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 111, by reason of the erroneous recital in the latter Act; this objection was overruled on the ground that no other Act could be meant.

(7) R. v. Atkinson, 2 Moo. C. C. 278; C. & M. 525. No notice was taken of the second objection.

(m) All property belonging to the society. (n) By 56 & 57 Vict. c. 39, s. 64, which provides for the summary punishment of offences against Industrial and Provident Societies, nothing in the section is to prevent the person being proceeded against by way of indictment unless he has previously been convicted of the same offence under this Act.

society. Scarr was also trustee. The rules of the society had been re-enrolled pursuant to the 10 Geo. 4, c. 56, as amended by the 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 40. (0) By a rule of the society it was provided that as soon as ten pounds more than was necessary for immediate use was in the box, it should be delivered to the trustees chosen for that purpose, who should dispose of it as the society should direct, agreeably to the 10 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 13. It was the duty of the treasurer to receive from the stewards the money paid by the members, which the treasurer kept till twenty or thirty pounds were collected, when he proposed that a certain amount should be deposited in the savings' bank. The duty of the prisoner as clerk was to keep the books, and as trustee to deposit and take money from the savings' bank. Either of the trustees could draw out money if he brought the book. Upon a club night previous to the 16th of January it was settled that ten pounds should be paid into the bank; the prisoner did not wish to take it then; but it was arranged that the trustees should come to take the money on the following Saturday. On Saturday, the 16th of January, the prisoner went to the treasurer's house alone, and made a false statement, whereupon the treasurer gave him the promissory-note in question, and the jury found that the prisoner obtained the note from the treasurer with intent to steal it. It was objected, on behalf of the prisoner, that, as he was a trustee, the property in the note was vested either wholly or in part in him, and that it was not the sole property of the treasurer; it was answered, that by the 10 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 21, all the effects of the society were vested in the treasurer or trustee for the time being, and were, for the purposes of suit, civil or criminal, to be the property of the treasurer or trustee for the time being, and that the meaning of this clause was to vest the property in one officer, and one only, whether he should be called treasurer or trustee, and that the treasurer in this case was that person. Upon a case reserved on the question whether the property was rightly laid in the treasurer, the judges were of opinion that the conviction was right, the treasurer, on the facts stated, being substantially the officer intended. (p) On an indictment for larceny as a bailee, and also for common larceny of the money of R. Carraway, it appeared that Carraway was the treasurer of a lodge of Odd Fellows, which was a friendly society duly enrolled, and the prisoner was one of its trustees. At a lodge meeting it was resolved that £40 should be sent to the bank of Messrs. Gurney, and that the prisoner should take it there. The £40 in gold and silver was taken from a box, which was in Carraway's keeping as treasurer, by a person who acted for him, and put into a bag and carried away by the prisoner, who dishonestly applied it to his own purposes. It was objected, that the money was not proved to be the money of Carraway, and that R. v. Cain (q) did not apply, because the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63, s. 18, now repealed, vested the property in the trustees and not in the treasurer, and that, supposing Carraway had a special property in the money, that property ceased as soon as the money was paid into the hands of the prisoner. On a case reserved, it was held that the

(0) These Acts are repealed by the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63.

VOL. I.

3

(p) R. v. Cain, 2 Moo. C. C. 204. C. & M. 309. (q) Supra.

conviction on the indictment in this form could not be sustained. In R. v. Cain the property was rightly laid in the treasurer under the 10 Geo. 4, c. 56; but in this case the money was not vested in the treasurer but in the trustees, of whom the prisoner was one, and he was specially appointed by a resolution of the society to take the money to the bank. It therefore could not be said that he stole the money, the property of the treasurer. As soon as the treasurer parted with the money he had nothing more to do with it. The prisoner might have been guilty of a breach of trust as against the other trustees, but it could not be said that he stole the money of the treasurer. (r) The prisoner was indicted for embezzling in 1842 money the property of H. W. Sitwell, and it was proved that the prisoner as clerk to the Rugby Savings' Bank had received and embezzled money which was the property of the trustees of the bank under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 92, s. 8. There was no rule or statute regulating the mode in which trustees should be appointed, or the mode in which resolutions of meetings should be entered. For the purpose of showing that Mr. Sitwell was trustee in 1842, Mr. Sitwell proved that from 1843 he had acted as trustee, but before 1843 he had only attended meetings of trustees, and when he had so attended he had signed the minute-book. The only entry to be found with his signature was for a meeting in 1835, and he stated that he had been requested by a person acting as a trustee to attend that meeting as a trustee lest there should be a deficiency of trustees, and that he had attended and signed the entry accordingly. The prisoner was at that meeting, and the heading of the page containing the resolutions was in his handwriting. Mr. Sitwell did not express by the signature that he was a trustee, or that he signed in that capacity. He did not do any act which trustees alone were capable of doing. All trustees and managers had an equal right to attend the meeting; there was nothing to show that a meeting of managers only, without any trustee, would have been invalid, and Mr. Sitwell, as rector of the parish, was ex officio a manager. Erle, J., held that there was evidence that Mr. Sitwell acted as trustee in 1835, and that that was some evidence, though very slight, that Mr. Sitwell was trustee in 1842; but, upon a case reserved, it was held that the evidence was insufficient. (s)

Savings' banks. — The 26 & 27 Vict. c. 87, which consolidates the laws relating to savings' banks, by sec. 10 vests the effects of such institutions in the trustee or trustees for the time being, and in all criminal proceedings the property may be stated to be that of the trustee or trustees for the time being, 'in his, her, or their proper name, without further description.'

The preceding clause is a re-enactment of the 9 Geo. 4, c. 92, s. 8, and where an indictment whilst that Act was in force alleged that the prisoner embezzled the property of W. T. and others, and it appeared that W. T. and others were trustees of a savings' bank; it was objected that these trustees were neither partners, joint tenants, parceners or tenants in common, within the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 14, and that the trustees ought to have been described by their names under (r) R. v. Loose, Bell, C. C. 259.

(s) R. v. Essex, D. & B. 369.