ployer, within the space of six months from the first to the last of such acts."

*460] *Description of property in the indictment. By the same section, in every indictment for embezzlement "where the offence shall relate to any money or any valuable security it shall be sufficient to allege the embezzlement, or fraudulent application or disposition to be of money, without specifying any particular coin or valuable security; and such allegation, so far as regards the description of the property, shall be sustained if the offender shall be proved to have embezzled, or fraudulently applied or disposed of, any amount, although the particular species of coin or valuable security of which such amount was composed shall not be proved."

Where part of the property is to be returned. By the same section an indictment for embezzlement of "money" is declared to be sustained against the prisoner " if he shall be proved to have embezzled or fraudulently applied or disposed of, any piece of coin or any valuable security, or any portion of the value thereof, although such piece of coin or valuable security may have been delivered to him in order that some part of the value thereof should be returned to the party delivering the same, or to some other person, and such part shall have been returned accordingly."

Persons indicted for embezzlement not to be acquitted if the offence turn out to be larceny, and vice versa. By s. 72, "if upon the trial of any person indicted for embezzlement, or fraudulent application or disposition, as aforesaid, it shall be proved that he took the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to larceny, he shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted, but the jury shall be at liberty to return as their verdict that such person is not guilty of embezzlement, or fraudulent application or disposition, but is guilty of simple larceny, or of larceny as a clerk, servant, or person employed for the purpose or in the capacity of a clerk or servant, or as a person employed in the public service, or in the police, as the case may be; and thereupon such person shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if he had been convicted upon an indictment for such larceny; and if upon the trial of any person indicted for larceny it shall be proved that he took the property in question in any such manner as to amount in law to embezzlement, or fraudulent application, or disposition, as aforesaid, he shall not by reason thereof be entitled to be acquitted, but the jury shall be at liberty to return as their verdict that such person is not guilty of larceny, but is guilty of embezzlement, or fraudulent application, or disposition, as the case may be, and thereupon such person shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if he had been convicted upon an indictment for such embezzlement, fraudulent application, or disposition; and no person so tried for embezzlement, fraudulent application, or disposition, or larceny as aforesaid, shall be liable to be

afterwards prosecuted for larceny, fraudulent application, or disposition, or embezzlement, upon the same facts."

Summary jurisdiction. By the 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, embezzlement by a clerk or servant, where such clerk or servant is a young person who consents to be tried summarily, or is an adult pleading guilty, may be dealt with summarily, and in the case of an adult consenting where the value of the property does not exceed 408., may be dealt with in like manner.

Ireland.

*Embezzlement by officers of the banks of England or [*461 By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 73, "whosoever being an officer or servant of the governor and company of the Bank of England, or of the Bank of Ireland, and being intrusted with any bond, deed, note, bill, dividend warrant, or warrant for payment of any annuity or interest, or money, or with any security, money, or other effects of or belonging to the said governor and company, or having any bond, deed, note, bill, dividend warrant, or warrant for payment of any annuity or interest or money, or any security, money, or other effects of any other person, body politic or corporate, lodged or deposited with the said governor and company, or with him as an officer or servant of the said governor and company, shall secrete, embezzle, or run away with, any such bond, deed, note, bill, dividend, or other warrant, security, money, or other effects, as aforesaid, or any part thereof, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for life, or for any term not less than three [now five] years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labor, and with or without solitary confinement."

Embezzlement of property of a trade union. See tit. "Lar

ceny."

Embezzlement of property by partners. See tit. "Larceny."

Embezzlement by officers of savings banks. See 26 & 27 Vict. c. 87, s. 9.

Embezzling warehoused goods. By the 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 85, it is enacted that "if any goods shall be taken out of any warehouse without due entry, the occupier of such warehouse shall forthwith pay the duties due upon such goods; and every person taking out any goods from any warehouse without payment of duty, or who shall aid, assist, or be concerned therein, and every person who shall destroy or embezzle any goods duly warehoused, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction, suffer the punishment by law inflicted in case of misdemeanor; but if such person shall be an officer of customs or excise not acting in the due execution of his duty, and shall be prosecuted to conviction by the

importer, consignee, or proprietor of such goods, no duty shall be payable for or in respect of such goods, and the damage occasioned by such destruction or embezzlement shall, with the sanction of the Commissioners of the Treasury, be repaid or made good to such importer, consignee, or proprietor by the Commissioners of Customs."

Embezzlement of naval and military stores. See post, tit. "Naval and Military Stores."

Embezzlement of post letters.

See post, tit. "Post Office."

Embezzling woollen, flax, mohair, silk, and other manufactures. By the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 40, various offences, partaking of the nature of embezzlement, are provided for with respect to manufac tures. R. v. Edmundson, 28 L. J., M. C. 213.

*462] *Falsification of accounts. By the 38 Vict. c. 24, s. 1, “if any clerk, officer, or servant, or any person employed or acting in the capacity of a 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 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 labor for any term not exceeding two years."

By s. 2, "it shall be sufficient in any indictment under this act to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded."

By s. 3, this act is to be read as one with the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96.

Interpretation. As to the meaning of the term "valuable security," see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 1, infra, tit. "Larceny."

What persons are within the statute. The question whether or not the prisoner comes within the meaning of the statute must be submitted to the jury, the judge directing them what facts are sufficient to determine this question in the negative or affirmative. See R. v. Negus, L. R., 2 C. C. 34; 42 L. J., M. C. 62.

The 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 68, comprises any person "being a clerk or servant, or being employed for the purpose or in the capacity of a clerk or servant." The words of the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 47, were the same; and under that statute it was always considered that there must be something more than a mere casual temporary employment for the particular occasion when the offence is committed. Indeed,

under that statute something more than this was required, as will be seen presently, p. 470.

General cases.

As to when the relation which is required by the statute is created, it has been held that a female servant is within the statute; R. v Smith, Russ. & Ry. 267; so, likewise, is an apprentice; R. v. Mellish, Russ. & Ry. 80.

Officer not servant. The clerk or servant of a corporation, although not appointed under the common seal, is a servant within the statute. R. v. Beacall, 1 C. & P. 457, 12 E. C. L.; 2 Russ. Cri. 343, 5th ed. Williams v. Stott, 1 Cromp. & M. 689. The clerk of a chapelry, who receives the sacrament money, is not the servant either of the curate, or of the chapel-wardens, or of the poor of the township, within the meaning of the act. R. v. Burton, 1 Moo. C. C. 237. The schoolmaster of a charity was held not to be the servant of the treasurer or committee. R. v. Nettleton, 1 Moo. C. C. 259. A person was chosen and sworn in at a court leet held by a corporation, as chamberlain of certain commonable lands. The duties of the chamberlain, who received no remuneration, were to collect moneys from the commoners and other persons using the commonable lands, to employ the moneys so received in keeping the common in order, and to account for the balance at the end of the year to two members of the corporation. *The Court of Exchequer held that this person was not within the statute. Williams v. Stott, ubi supra. [*463

A person employed by the overseers of the poor under the name of their accountant and treasurer is a clerk within the statute. Thus, where the prisoner had acted for many years for the overseers of the parish of Leeds, at a yearly salary, under the name of their accountant and treasurer, and as such had received and paid all the money receivable or payable on their account, rendering to them a weekly statement, purporting to be an account of moneys so received and paid, he was held to be rightly convicted of embezzlement. R. v. Squire, Russ. & Ry. 349; 2 Stark. 394, 3 E. C. L. So a person who acted as clerk to parish officers at a yearly salary, voted by the vestry, was convicted of embezzlement. R. v. Tyers, Russ. & Ry. 402. And an extra collector of poor-rates, paid out of the parish funds, by a percentage, was held by Richardson, J., to be a clerk of the churchwardens and overseers, so as to support an indictment for embezzlement. R. v. Ward, Gow. 168. The law on this subject is simplified by the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 103, s. 15, which, after reciting that difficulty had arisen in cases of larceny or embezzlement as to the proper description of the office of collectors of poor-rates and assistant-overseers, enacts that "in respect of any indictment or other criminal proceeding, every collector or assistant-overseer appointed under the authority of any order of the poor-law commissioners, or the poorlaw board, shall be deemed and taken to be the servant of the inhabitants of the parish whose money or other property he shall be charged to have embezzled or stolen, and shall be so described; and it shall be

sufficient to state any such money or property to belong to the inhabitants of such parish, without the names of any such inhabitants being specified." See R. v. Carpenter, L. R., 1 C. C. R. 29; 35 L. J., M. C. 169 A similar provision is contained in some local acts. An underbailiff of a county court is not the servant of the high-bailiff, though employed by him to make levies by virtue of the processes of the court. R. v. Glover, L. & C. 466; 33 L. J., M. C. 169.

In R. v. Tongue, 30 L. J., M. C. 49, the secretary of a money club, hired at a salary, was held to be within the old statute.

The treasurer of a friendly society cannot be indicted for embezzlement, because he is an accountable officer and not a servant. By the Friendly Societies Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63 (now repealed, but there is a similar provision in the 38 & 39 Vict. c. 60, s. 16), the moneys of the society were vested in trustees. The treasurer received no salary, and had to give security upon which the trustees were empowered to sue. He had to account to the trustees when required, and to pay over the balance. R. v. Tyree, L. R., 1 C. C. R. 177; 38 L. J., M. C.

58.

Servant of illegal society. Where a society, in consequence of administering to its members an unlawful oath, was an unlawful combination and confederacy under the statutes of 37 Geo. 3, c. 123; 39 Geo. 3, c. 79; 52 Geo. 3, c. 104; and 57 Geo. 3, c. 19; it was held by Mirehouse, C. S. (after consulting Bosanquet and Coleridge, JJ.), that a person charged with embezzlement as clerk and servant to such society could not be convicted. R. v. Hunt, 8 C. & P. 642, 34 E. C. L. And see Milligan v. Wedge, infra. But where a society is legal, though some of its rules are void as being in restraint of trade, *the servant of the society may be convicted of embezzlement. *464] R. v. Stainer, L. R., 1 C. C. R. 230; 39 L. J., M. C. 54; and as to trade unions, it is now enacted by the 34 & 35 Vict. c. 31 s. 2, that the purposes of any trade union shall not, by reason merely that they are in restraint of trade, be deemed to be unlawful so as to render any member of such trade union liable to criminal prosecution for conspiracy or otherwise, or s. 3, so as to render void or voidable any agreement or trust, and see post, tit. "Larceny."

Employed for single act. The prisoner was a carrier whose only employment was to carry unsewed gloves from a glove manufacturer at A. to glove sewers who resided at B., to carry them back when sewed, and to receive the money for the work and pay it to the glove sewers, deducting his charge. On several occasions he appropriated the money which he received on behalf of the sewers. It was held that he was not the servant of the sewers so as to be guilty of embezzlement; that his offence was a breach of trust, being a mere bailee of the money. R. v. Gibbs, Dears. C. C. 445; 24 L. J., M. C. 63. Where the relation of master and servant arises, it is immaterial that the sum embezzled was obtained in the conduct of a single transaction out of the ordinary course of service. R. v. Smith, R. & R. 516,