66 Ss. 1, 2. Coleridge, L. C. J., a number of persons who join themselves together, not for any criminal purpose, but their joining together is not legalised. It is true that they have no legal existence as a company, association, or co-partnership, but they are none the less beneficial owners of property. In the indictment, the property was properly laid in the prisoner, W. Jackson, and others, as beneficial owners. It does not follow that because the club had no legal existence as a company, association or co-partnership, the members had no legal existence as beneficial owners of property. It is untrue to say that they are not beneficial owners in fact. It has been decided in Reg. v. Stainer, before trade unions were legalised, that where the property was laid in an association in the nature of a trade union, it did not follow that a person could not be convicted of stealing or embezzling their property because the association did not in all respects conform to the law, and the grounds of that decision apply here. It seems to me that the case for the prisoner is gone the moment his counsel is obliged to admit that if his contention be good, the property belonged to nobody and could, so to speak, be scrambled for. It would be a very strong thing to hold that an association not expressly sanctioned by law, yet not criminal, is incapable of holding any property at all." In Reg. v. Robson, in 1885 (15 Cox, 772), the meaning of co-partnership" in this section was discussed. The Court for Crown Cases Reserved (Coleridge, L. C. J., Denman, Field, Hawkins and Wills, JJ.) was unanimously of opinion that the term, in modern usage, is confined to societies formed for gain, and the conviction of the prisoner, a member of a Young Men's Christian Association, for embezzling their money,on an indictment under this section as 66 a member of a co-partnership," was quashed. It seems that if he had been indicted as one of several joint beneficial owners, it could have been sustained. 2. All the provisions of the Act passed in the Vict. c. 126, session of Parliament held in the eighteenth and nineteenth years of Her present Majesty's reign, "Co-partnership." Provisions of 18 & 19 extended to embezzlement by clerks or servants. 66 intituled An Act for diminishing Expense and Delay Ss. 2, 3. in the administration of Criminal Justice in certain Cases, shall extend and be applicable to the offence of embezzlement by clerks or servants, or persons employed for the purpose or in the capacity of clerks or servants, and the said Act shall henceforth be read as if the said offence of embezzlement had been included therein. Most of this Act is repealed, in so far as it relates to England, by 42-3 V. 49. It still applies to Ireland. 3. This Act shall not extend to Scotland. Extent of THE TRADES UNIONS FUNDS PROTECTION 32-3 V. 61. This Act* expired in 1871; it is therefore not worth while to set it out. For the circumstances in which it was passed, see the Annual Register for 1869, p. 176.] "It is presumed that even before this statute a trades union might have maintained an action against an officer who had misappropriated their funds, for money had and received to their use (cf. Tenant v. Elliott, 1 B. & P. 3)." Jolly, Contracts in Restraint of Trade, p. 50. This is an interesting speculation. Criminal proceedings had failed in Hornby v. Close and Farrer v. Close. See p. 48 and p. 51. THE CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1871. 34-5 V. 32. As to the origin of this statute, cf. p. 28. This Act "was repealed by 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, s. 17 (see p. 164), in consequence of the decision in R. v. Bunn, (12 Cox, 316) in 1872, that improper combination to control a master was still a common law offence (Archbold's Criminal Pleadings, 22nd ed., p. 1102). Part of the headnote to that case runs : "An indictment for conspiracy at common law will lie against two or more persons for conspiring to commit an offence for which special provision is made by statute. The defendants, servants of a gas company under contract of service, being offended by the dismissal of a fellow-servant, agreed together to quit the service of their employers without notice and in breach of their contracts of service, by reason of which the company were seriously impeded in the conduct of their business. Held, that the provisions of the statute [34-5 V. 32] had not affected the common law of conspiracy, for which an indictment would lie.” The prisoners were found guilty of conspiracy "to do a lawful act by unlawful means." They were acquitted of conspiracy to do an unlawful act. Reg. v. Bunn was overruled by Gibson v. Lawson. See p. 131. According to Sir J. F. Stephen (3 History of the Criminal Law, c. 30), the decision in the Gas Stokers' case "caused a real dissatisfaction amongst those who were principally affected by it," and led not only to the repeal of this statute but to the enactment of 38-9 V. 86. See p. 123. *According to the same writer this was the last occasion on which the course was taken of asserting a power" inherent in the Judges" of declaring acts to be offences at common law which were never so declared before, i.e., by "the treatment of conspiracies in restraint of trade as a common law misdemeanour." The history of this matter "is by no means favourable to the declaration by the bench of new offences" (Ibid. c. 34). THE FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS ACT, 1875.* 38-9 V. 24. An Act to amend the Law with reference to the Falsification of Accounts. [29 June, 1875. S. 1. for falsifica counts, &c. 1. If any clerk, officer, or servant, or any per- Punishment son employed or acting in the capacity of a tion of ac clerk, officer, or servant, shall wilfully and with intent to defraud destroy, alter, mutilate, or falsify 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 shall wilfully and with intent to defraud make or concur in making any false entry .in, or omit or alter, or concur in omitting or altering, any material particular from or in any such book, or any document or account, then in every such case the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be liable to be kept in penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven years, or to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two years. "Or to be imprisoned . 2 years." Repealed 56-7 V. 54 (S. L. R. (No. 2) Act, 1893). * See Introduction, p. 9. The Act is inserted here because it might protect unregistered Trade Unions. defraud Ss. 2, 3, 4. 2. It shall be sufficient in any indictment under Intention to this Act to allege a general intent to defraud, sufficient without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded. indictment. Act to be read with c. 96. 3. This Act shall be read as one with the Act of 24 & 25 Vict. the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth of Her Majesty, chapter ninety-six. Short title. I.e., The Larceny Act, 1861. 4. This Act may be cited as the Falsification of Accounts. Act, 1875. |