that it was not her own, and intending at that moment to appropriate the contents to her own use, the Court held that she was rightly convicted, as she had no reasonable grounds for believing that the owner could not be found.1

Again, where a cabman abstracts the contents of a parcel which has been accidentally left in his cab by a passenger whose address he could easily ascertain, or where a tailor finds and applies to his own use a pocket-book left in a coat sent to him by a customer to be repaired, he commits larceny. So if a man, who had bought a desk at an auction, discovered valuables in it and appropriated them to his own use, he would be guilty of larceny, if he had no ground for supposing that he had bought the contents, and had reason to think that the owner could be discovered.2

VI.

Lastly, the prisoner must carry away the thing which he is accused of stealing. This is technically called "asportation." He must do something more than merely take possession of it; otherwise he will be guilty only of an attempt to commit larceny. But the least removal will suffice, provided every atom of the thing is removed an appreciable distance from the place which it previously occupied. It is not necessary Where, however, the

that the thief should make off with it. thing is so fastened or secured that it cannot be completely removed without breaking a cord or otherwise severing the fastening, merely shifting its position without releasing it will not amount to larceny. In order to render the asportation in such cases complete, there must be a severance. The law on this point is well and succinctly stated in the Larceny Act, 1916: "The expression 'carries away' includes any removal of anything from the place which it occupies, but in the case of a thing attached only if it has been completely detached." 3

Thus, if a man be apprehended in the act of leading another's horse out of a field; if a thief, intending to steal plate, takes it out of a chest in which it was, and lays it down upon the floor, but is surprised before he can make his escape with it; or if gas or water be fraudulently abstracted from the main against the will and without the knowledge of the company who supply it—in any of these cases there is a sufficient asportation.4

1 R. v. West (1854), Dearsl. 402.

Cartwright. Green (1802), 8 Ves. 405; and see Merry v. Green (1841), 7 M. & W. 623.

8 S. 1 (2) (ii.).

As to gas, see R. v. Firth (1869), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 172; as to water, see Ferens v. O'Brien (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 21; as to electricity, see Larceny Act, 1916, s. 10.

So, too, where the prisoner moved a cask from one end of a cart to the other, intending to steal it, but was detected before he could carry it off, it was held that he was guilty of larceny. On the other hand, to lift up a sack from a horizontal position and stand it up on end was held not to be a sufficient asportation.2

Where, however, the prisoner lifted a pocket-book half-way out of the prosecutor's pocket meaning to steal it, and being surprised in the act let it fall back again, it was held that that was a sufficient asportation to convict him of the full offence.3

But where a man in a shop snatched up a parcel which was attached to the counter by a string, so that it could not be taken out of the shop without cutting or breaking the string, which he had not done, it was held that he could be convicted only of an attempt to commit larceny. 4

A count for simple larceny may be inserted in an indictment for any aggravated larceny, e.g., in a dwelling-house or by a servant. This is not, however, necessary, as the prisoner may be convicted of simple larceny on a count for aggravated larceny. A count is usually added for receiving the same goods knowing them to have been stolen. It is not "necessary (except when required for the purpose of describing an offence depending on any special ownership of property or special value of property) to name the person to whom the property belongs or the value of the property.'

On an indictment for larceny a man can be convicted of embezzlement or of an attempt to commit larceny. If he is indicted for larceny and his offence proves to be in law false pretences, he cannot be convicted of larceny; but he may be convicted of false pretences, although the false pretences are not set out in the indictment. If he is indicted for false pretences and his offence proves to be in law larceny, he can nevertheless be convicted of false pretences. This distinction is no doubt due to the old rule of practice at common law that a prisoner indicted for a lesser offence could never be convicted on that indictment of a graver offence.

AGGRAVATED LARCENY.

Certain kinds of larceny are regarded by the law as more heinous than others. They are known as "aggravated larcenies," because in addition to all the elements of simple larceny they are attended by special circumstances which aggravate the offence. The maximum punishment for these

1 R. v. Walsh (1824), 1 Moo. C. C. 14.

2 R. v. Cherry (1781), 2 East, P. C. 556.

R. v. Thompson (1825), 1 Moo. C. C. 78; R. v. Taylor, [1911] 1 K. B. 674.

▲ Anon. (1782), 2 East, P. C. 556; R. v. Wilkinson (1598), ib., and 1 Hale, 508. Rule 6 (1) under the Indictments Act, 1915 (5 & 6 Geo. V. c. 90).

* S. 44 (3).

7 S. 44 (4).

felonies is penal servitude for fourteen years. If, however, the prosecution fails to prove the special circumstances which aggravate the offence, the prisoner may be found guilty of simple larceny. These aggravated larcenies are as follows :— 1. Stealing to the value of ten shillings any woollen, linen, hempen or cotton yarn, or any goods or article of silk, woollen, linen, cotton, alpaca or mohair, or any one or more of those materials mixed with each other or with any other material, whilst laid, placed or exposed in any place during the progress of manufacture (s. 9).

2. Stealing in any dwelling-house any chattel, money or valuable security to the value of £5, or of any value if any person therein be put in bodily fear by any menaces or threats used (s. 13).1

3. Stealing any chattel, money or valuable security from the person of another (s. 14).

4. Stealing any goods in any vessel, barge or boat in any haven, port of entry or discharge, or upon any navigable river or canal, or in any creek or basin belonging to or communicating with any such haven, port, river or canal, or from any dock, wharf or quay adjacent thereto (s. 15).

5. Stealing any part of any vessel in distress, or wrecked, stranded or cast on shore, or any goods, merchandise or articles of any kind belonging to such vessel (s. 15).

6. Larceny by a clerk or servant, or one employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, of any chattel, money or valuable security belonging to or in the possession of his master or employer (s. 17 (1)).2

7. Larceny by any one employed in the public service of His Majesty or in the police of any chattel, money or valuable security belonging to or in the possession of His Majesty, or entrusted to or received into possession by the offender by virtue of his employment (s. 17 (2)).

And, lastly, with reference to offences connected with the Post Office, "every person who-

(1) steals a mail-bag; or

(2) steals from a mail-bag, post office, officer of the Post

1 As to stealing by a tenant or lodger, see s. 16.

2 See indictment, No. 15, in the Appendix.

Office or mail, any postal packet in course of transmission by post; or

(3) steals any chattel, money or valuable security out of a postal packet in course of transmission by post; or

(4) stops a mail with intent to rob the mail;

shall be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof liable to penal servitude for life." "Every person who, being an officer of the Post Office, steals or embezzles a postal packet in course of transmission by post shall be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof liable

(a) if the postal packet contains any chattel, money or

valuable security, to penal servitude for life :

(b) in all other cases to penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years."

Any one who "knowingly and wilfully aids, abets, counsels, procures or commands the commission of an offence" against the Larceny Act, 1916, may be indicted and tried as a principal offender,3

1 S. 12, re-enacting the Post Office Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII. c. 48), s. 50.

2 S. 18; and see 8 Edw. VII. c. 48, s. 55,

$ S. 35.

1

CHAPTER II.

EMBEZZLEMENT, &c.

THE crime of embezzlement is closely analogous to larceny. It is committed where a clerk or servant unlawfully appropriates to his own use money or goods received by him for or on account of his employer or master. The exact language of the statute is as follows:-"Every person who, being a clerk or servant, or person employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, fraudulently embezzles the whole or any part of any chattel, money or valuable security, delivered to or received or taken into possession by him for or in the name or on the account of his master or employer, shall be guilty of felony, and on conviction thereof liable to penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years." Boys under sixteen years of age may be once privately whipped in addition to any other punishment which the Court may award. Embezzlement is an offence distinct from larceny, from which it differs in two important particulars :

(i.) The crime of embezzlement can only be committed by "a clerk or servant" or by one who is "employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant," whereas any one can be guilty of larceny.

(ii) The prisoner must take possession of the property and convert it to his own use before it comes into the possession of the prosecutor. If the property has come into the possession, actual or constructive, of the prosecutor before. the prisoner converts it to his own use, the offence is not embezzlement but larceny by a clerk or servant.

(i.) The first essential, then, is that the prisoner must be the "clerk or servant," or a person" employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant," of the person whose goods he embezzles.

1 6 & 7 Geo. V. c. 50, s. 17 (1). See indictment, No. 9, in the Appendix.