defendant individually: c. q. So where it is clear that defendant could not have been the thief. H. Fiela, 1910: c. q. See pp. 297, 299.

Paramour receiving from a wife] A guilty receipt from a wife of her husband's goods was always a misdemeanour at common law, at any rate, a trespass, but in favorem vitæ it shall not be adjudged a felony.' Hale, 1 P. C. 514. Whether there could be larceny in such a case is discussed under that title. But in either case a paramour was in a different position. Till the A. of 1882 it was only when the stealing amounted to a felony at common law or by statute that the receiving was by statute a felony. Hence, while the wife was duly convicted of the larceny, the paramour's conviction for receiving was quashed because he had been indicted under the Larceny A. 1861, which did not make his act a felony. Streeter, 1900, 2 Q. B. 601; 19 Cox C. C. 570; 69 L. J. Q. B. 915; 64 J. P. 537; 83 L. T. 288: C. C. R. Though the direction in Totterdell, 1910 (that receiving might be found against a paramour), was quite wrong, the C. C. A. declined to interfere. Cf. Wife and Paramour under Larceny, and p. 770.

Thus an indictment charging such a receipt as a misdemeanour is good. The point is settled by s. 33 (1) of the Larceny A. 1916. Whether the receiver is a paramour or not, it should be averred that the property was stolen from her husband, but this is not essential. Payne, 1906, 1 K. B. 97; 75 L. J. K. B. 114; 70 J. P. 28; 22 T. L. R. 126; 21 Cox C. C. 121: C. C. R. See James, 1902.

Election] See that title and Hayes, above. There may be as many counts charging receiving of goods as there are counts charging the stealing thereof, and the prosecutor cannot be put to his election on what count or counts he will proceed. Beeton, 1 Den. C. C. R. 414; 18 L. J. M. C. 117; 3 Cox C. C. 451, 1849; Heywood, 1864.

It was held that although goods may be stolen by a part owner, yet the receiving of such goods (stolen by a partner) was not within 24-5 V. 96, 91, rpd., on account of the rpd. words, either at common law or by virtue of this Act.' Smith, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 266; 39 L. J. M. C. 112; 11 Cox C. C. 511, 1870; followed in Streeter, 1900.

Defence] See Theadorus, and Onus, above.

The rule is no

Venue] A. Theft, &c. in United Kingdom. See s. 39 (1) of the Larceny A. 1916. longer that stated by L. Coleridge C.J. in Carr, 1882: 'the prisoners cannot be convicted here unless the stealing took place within the jurisdiction of our courts.' One half of a note issued by a bank at S. in Wiltshire was stolen in its transit through the post, and defendant was proved to have received it with guilty knowledge, but it was not proved to have been in his possession in Wiltshire. He posted it in Somersetshire in a letter, addressed it to the bank at S., requesting payment, which letter was duly delivered. It was held that, on an indictment for receiving (under a rpd. st. which permitted the venue wherever the receiver had the property in his possession'), where the venue was laid in Wiltshire, he might be convicted, for the possession of the post-office servants, who were his agents to present the note at the bank at S., might be treated as his possession; and that, therefore, he might be tried in Wiltshire. Cryer, 26 L. J. M. C. 192; 7 Cox C. C. 335, 1857:

C. C. R. Even at common law the venue would perhaps be proper, treating the receiver as an accessory after the fact': per Cockburn C.J. See the Post-office cases.

Defendants were indicted in Dorset, in several counts for stealing and receiving. M. was convicted only on a count which charged him with the substantive felony of receiving at T. in the county of Somerset,' no one being named as the thief. It was held that on this indictment he could not be convicted, as there was no jurisdiction, though by other counts it appeared that the goods were stolen in Dorset. Martin, 1849. Cf. Rogers, 1868.

Statute] By s. 39 (3) of the Larceny A. 1916: 'Every person who receives in any one part of the United Kingdom any property stolen or otherwise feloniously taken in any other part of the United Kingdom may be dealt with, indicted, tried and punished in that part of the United Kingdom where he so receives the property in the same manner as if it had been originally stolen or taken in that part.'

In Graham, &c., 65 J. P. 248, 1901, defendants ordered various fur articles in Paris, and a jacket was delivered; the seller regarded the transactions as cash,' but did not ask for payment till all the furs were delivered; they brought the furs to London, where they were convicted because (1) there was evidence of larceny (by a trick) according to English law, (2) the L. A. 1896, rpd., applied where property was alleged to be stolen by the possessor in England.

B. Theft, &c. not in United Kingdom.

At common law, goods taken, &c. abroad, e.g. in Guernsey, are not stolen; hence, there cannot be a conviction for receiving them in England. See Debrudel.

Where the receipt abroad and possession took place before the enactment of a s. (in L. A. 1896, which s. 33 (4), p. 980, replaces), the offence was committed. Panse, 61 J. P. 536, 1897.

Triable at Q. S. The exceptions in s. 38 (1), b, to such triability seem to have no application to Receiving.

RECORDS, ETC., OFFENCES IN RESPECT OF.
See Written Instruments.

RECOVERY OF GOODS STOLEN, ETC., CORRUPT.

See s. 34 of the Larceny A. 1916; s. 35 covers the person who sets in motion the offender against s. 34.

See Index.

REGISTERS, DESTROYING, ETC.

Defendant was employed in getting up a pedigree, and for that purpose searched the register of births, &c., in a parish. On one occasion, whilst the curate was looking for another book, and had his back turned, he tore off part of a leaf of a register. The part torn off was not destroyed, and the book was subsequently repaired, and was then as legible as before. The jury found that he tore the book wilfully, and the judges affirmed the conviction, which was under 1 W. 4, 66, 20, rpd. Bowen, 1 Den. C. C. 22, 1844.

Destruction, falsification, &c. of registers] By 24-5 V. 98, 36: "Whosoever shall unlawfully destroy, deface, or injure, or cause or permit to be destroyed, defaced, or injured, any register of births, baptisms, marriages, deaths, or burials, which now is or hereafter shall be by law authorised or required to be kept in England or Ireland, or any part of any such register, or any certified copy of any such register, or any part thereof, or shall knowingly and unlawfully insert or cause or permit to be inserted in any such register, or in any certified copy thereof, any false entry of any matter relating to any birth, baptism, marriage, death, or burial, or shall knowingly and unlawfully give any false certificate relating to any birth, baptism, marriage, death, or burial, or shall certify any writing to be a copy or extract from any such register, knowing such writing or the part of such register whereof such copy or extract shall be so given to be false in any material particular, or shall offer, utter, dispose of, or put off any such register, entry, certified copy, certificate, knowing the same to be false, or shall offer, utter, dispose of, or put off any copy of any entry in any such register, knowing such entry to be false, .. shall be guilty of felony.' Maximum punishment,

penal servitude for life.

S. 37: Whosoever shall knowingly and wilfully insert, or cause or permit to be inserted, in any copy of any register, directed or required by law to be transmitted to any registrar or other officer, any false entry of any matter relating to any baptism, marriage, or burial

or shall knowingly and wilfully sign or verify any copy of any register so directed or required to be transmitted as aforesaid, which copy shall be false in any part thereof, knowing the same to be false, or shall unlawfully destroy, deface, or injure, or shall, for any fraudulent purpose, take from its place of deposit, or conceal, any such copy of any register, shall be guilty of felony.' Maximum punishment, penal servitude for life.

In Asplin, 12 Cox C. C. 391, 1873, defendant personated the brother of a man at his bigamous marriage and signed his name in the parish register, being the third witness, as such brother; he was not aware of the bigamy. Martin B. held that he could be convicted; it does not seem (as stated) that he held that it is not necessary that there

should be an intent to defraud. Perhaps the indictment was under s. 36 (and not 37, as stated by Cox).

Of land] Fraudulently procuring an entry, erasure or alteration to be made in registry of land under 38-9 V. 87, 100, is a misdemeanour.

Non-parochial] See 3-4 V. 92, 8.

REGISTRAR UNLAWFULLY ISSUING CERTIFICATE OF

MARRIAGE.

By 6-7 W. 4, 85, 40, this is felony in the cases there specified; by s. 41, a prosecution must be commenced within three years after the offence committed.' See Registers, above.

REGISTRATION OFFENCES.

See False Declarations and Registers in Index.

RELIGION, OFFENCES AGAINST.

See Blasphemy, under which there are references to some of the Reformation legislation, creating what may be called 'offences against religion,' some of which Stephen (Dig. Cr. Law, 5th ed. Arts. 182-4) individually designates Depraving the Lord's Supper, Depraving the Book of Common Prayer, Clergymen refusing to use the Book of Common Prayer. These, as that writer says (ib.), are practically obsolete,' and it is not, therefore, worth while to set out the provisions of the statutes mentioned under Blasphemy, all of which, as well as 2-3 E. 6, 1, are summarised by Stephen, ib.; or see 9 Halsbury, 530, who says that these offences are not triable at Q. S.

6

Crawle (reported as Crawle v. Crawle) is a case of conviction on indictment (under a rpd. st.) for not going to church. 1 Vern. 170, 1683. See Petcherini.

In the Report, &c. of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission (1883), vol. i., Historical Appendix (vi.), p. 162, there is a collection of cases, illustrative of the manner in which matters relating to the doctrine, ritual, and discipline of the Church of England have been dealt with by the temporal courts since the middle of the fifteenth century,' whence it appears that there has been no indictment under the Act of Uniformity (1 Eliz. 2) since 1795 (Report, p. xlv.).

See Clergymen, Public Worship, and Sacrilege; and for antiChristian speeches at funerals, see Burials, &c.

RESCUE.

See Escape and Prison-Breach. These three titles should be compared throughout; and cf. Luttrell's case.

Where the person rescued is in custody or under arrest for felony or suspicion thereof, the rescuing is felony also. 1 Hale P. O. 606: analogously of a misdemeanour. Hawk. P. O. 2, 21, 6.

'If the party rescued be imprisond for felony, and be rescued before indictment, the indictment must surmise a felony done, as well as an imprisonment for felony, or suspicion thereof; but if the party be indicted and taken by a capias, and rescued, then there needs only a recital that he was indicted prout, and taken and rescued. But tho the rescuer may be indicted before the principal be convicted and attainted, yet he shall not be arraigned or tried before the principal be attaint.' Hale P. C. 607. In such case, however, he may, as it seems, be indicted and tried for a misdemeanour, though not for a felony. Ib. 599.

The custody] It is immaterial whether the custody is that of a private person, or of an officer, or under a warrant of a justice of the peace, for where the arrest of a felon is lawful, the rescue of him is felony. But it seems necessary that the rescuer should have knowledge that the other is under arrest for felony, if he be in the custody of a private person, though if he be in the custody of a constable or sheriff, or in prison, he is at his peril to take notice of it.' 1 Hale P. C. 606. So if he breaks prison without knowing there are felons there; and, if 'traitors' so escape, it is treason: ib. If the imprisonment be so far irregular that the prisoner would not be guilty of prison-breach by making his escape, a rescuer is also excused; and the converse holds. Hawk. P. C. 2, 21, 1, 2.

If the custody be legal, an attempt to rescue is a misdemeanour: E. of Thanet, &c., 27 St. Tr. 821; East P. C. 408; Russ. Cri. 892, 1799: convicted on ex-officio information of attempting to rescue from the dock a defendant just acquitted but legally detained on warrant for another charge.

A warrant of a justice to arrest, founded on a certificate of the clerk of the peace, that an indictment against a certain person for a misdemeanour had been found, is good; and, therefore, if on such warrant he be arrested, and afterwards rescued, those who are guilty may be convicted of a misdemeanour. Stokes, 5 C. & P. 148, 1831. In Almey, 3 Jur. N. S. 750, 1857, Erle J. held that the forcible rescue of a poacher in illegal custody is indictable, though perhaps the prisoner might have lawfully resisted.

Indictment] The word rescue, or some equivalent, must appear in the indictment. Burriage, 3 P. Wms. 484, 1735; what was held by all the judges in Stanley, below, to be incorrectly decided,' was the sentence in the second trial (see ib. 500). Hawk. P. C. 2, 18, 12, cited under Prison-Breach, seems to apply to rescue; also b. 2, 21, 3.