and keep in order; that he held the only key of the chapel, but that the minister had a key of the vestry, through which he might enter the chapel. Upon a case reserved, the judges were of opinion that the property of the goods taken could not be considered as belonging to Evans. Hutchinson's case, Russ. and Ry. 412 (a). But in some cases, as against third persons, a party who, as against his employer, has the bare charge of goods, may be considered as having the possession, as in the case of the driver of a stage coach. Ante, p. 583. So where the owner of goods steals them from his own servant, with intent to charge him with the loss, the goods may, as already stated, be described as the property of the servant. Ante, p. 580.

Proof of ownership-of corporations.] Where goods are the property of a company of persons not incorporated, they must be described as the goods of the individuals, or of some one of the individuals, and others. 1 Russ. 164. But by the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 20, judgment shall not be stayed or reversed on the ground that any person or persons mentioned in an indictment or information, is or are designated by a name of office, or other descriptive appellation, instead of his, her, or their proper name

or names.

The goods of a corporation must be described as their goods, by their corporate name. Where in an indictment the goods were laid to be the property of A. B. C. D., &c., they the said A. B. C. D., &c., being the churchwardens of the parish church; and it appeared that the churchwardens were incorporated by the name of "the churchwardens of the parish church of Enfield," the court (at the Old Bailey) held the variance fatal. They said that where any description of men are directed by law to act in a corporate capacity, their natural and individual capacity, as to all matters respecting the subject of their incorporation, is totally extinct. If an action were brought in the private names of the prosecutors, for any matter relating to their public capacity, they must unavoidably be nonsuited, and a fortiori it must be erroneous in a criminal prosecution. Patrick's case, 1 Leach, 252. But where trustees were appointed by act of parliament (but not incorporated), for providing a workhouse, and property stolen from them was laid to be the property of "the trustees of the poor of," &c., without naming them, the court (at the Old Bailey) held it wrong; for as the act had not incorporated the trustees, and by that means given them collectively a public name, the property should have been laid as belonging to A. B., &c. by their proper names, and the words *"trustees of the poor of," &c. subjoined as a description of the [ *587 ] capacity in which they were authorized by the legislature to act. rington's case, 1 Leach, 513. On the authority of this case the following was decided:-By the 24 Geo. 3, c. 15, certain inhabitants in seven parishes were incorporated by the name of "the guardians of the poor of," &c. Twelve directors were to be appointed out of the guardians, and the property belonging to the corporation was vested in "the directors for the time being," who were to execute the powers of the act. The prisoner was indicted for embezzling the monies of the "directors of the poor of," &c. The judges, on a case reserved, held that the money should have been laid, either as the money of the guardians of the poor, by their (a) 1 Eng. C. C. 412.

Sher

corporate name, or of the directors for the time being, by their individual names. Beacall's case, 1 Moody, C. C. 15 (a). See Jones and Palmer's case, 1 Leach, 366; 2 East, P. C. 991, ante, p. 458.

Proof of the ownership-goods belonging to counties, &c.] By the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 15, with respect to the property of counties, ridings, and divisions, it is enacted, "that in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed in, upon, or with respect to any bridge, court, gaol, house of correction, infirmary, asylum, or other building, erected or maintained in whole or in part at the expense of any county, riding, or division, or on or with respect to any goods or chattels whatsoever, provided for or at the expense of any county, riding, or division, to be used for making, altering, or repairing any bridge, or any highway at the ends thereof, or any court or other such building as aforesaid, or to be used in or with any such court or other building, it shall be sufficient to state any such property, real or personal, to belong to the inhabitants of such county, riding, or division; and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any of such inhabitants."

Proof of the ownership—goods for the use of the poor of parishes.] By the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 16, with respect to the property of parishes, townships, and hamlets, it is enacted, "that in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed in, upon, or with respect to any workhouse or poorhouse, or on or with respect to any goods or chattels whatsoever, provided for the use of the poor of any parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, or to be used in any workhouse or poorhouse in or belonging to the same, or by the master or mistress of such workhouse or poorhouse, or by any workmen or servants employed therein, it shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the overseers of the poor for the time being of such parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet of hamlets, place or places, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of all or any of such overseers; and in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemean or committedon or with respect to any materials, tools, or im[*588] plements, provided for making, altering, or *repairing any highway within any parish, township, hamlet, or place, otherwise than by the trustees or commissioners of any turnpike road, it shall be sufficient to aver that any such things are the property of the surveyor or surveyors of the highways for the time being of such parish, township, hamlet, or place, and it shall not be necessary to specify the name or names of any such surveyor or surveyors."

Proof of ownership—goods, &c. of trustees of turnpikes.] By the 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 17, with respect to property under turnpike trusts, it is enacted, "that in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed on or with respect to any house, building, gate, machine, lamp, board, stone, post, fence, or other thing, erected or provided in pursuance of any act of parliament for making any turnpike road, or any of the conveniences or appurtenances thereunto respectively belonging, or any materials, tools, or implements provided for making, altering, or repairing any such road, it shall be sufficient to state any such property

(a) 2 Eng. C. C. 15.

to belong to the trustees or commissioners of such road, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any such trustees or commnissioners."

Proof of ownership—goods, &c. of commissioners of sewers.] By statute 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 18, with respect to property under commissioners of sewers, it is enacted, "that in any indictment or information for any felony or misdemeanor committed on or with respect to any sewer or other matter within or under the view, cognizance, or management of any commissioners of sewers, it shall be sufficient to state any such property to belong to the commissioners of sewers within or under whose view, cognizance, or management, any such things shall be, and it shall not be necessary to specify the names of any of such commissioners."

Proof of ownership-goods belonging to friendly societies, &c.] By the 10 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 21, the monies, goods, chattels, securities for money, and all other effects whatever belonging to any friendly society, may be described to be the property of the person appointed to the office of treasurer or trustee of the society for the time being, in his proper name, without further description. So by the 9 Geo. 4, c. 92, s. 8, the monies, goods, chattels and effects, and securities for money, or other obligatory instruments and evidences or muniments belonging to any savings bank may be stated to be the property of the trustee or trustees of such institution for the time being, in his, her or their proper names, without further description. So by the 4 and 5 Wm. 4, c. 23, for the establishment of loan societies in England and Wales (s. 4,) the monies, goods, chattels and effects belonging to any such institution, may be stated to be the property of the trustee or trustees thereof for the time being, in his or their proper name, without further description.

Presumption of guilt arising from the possession of stolen property.] *Most of the cases on this subject have already been considered; [*589] ante, p. 18. The question of what is or is not a recent possession of stolen property, is to be considered with reference to the nature of the article stolen. Therefore where two ends of woolen cloth, in an unfinished state, consisting of about twenty yards each, were found in the possession of the prisoner two months after they were stolen, and were still in the same state, Patteson J., held, that as they were not articles such as pass from hand to hand readily, it was a question for the jury, whether the usual presumption did not arise. Partridge's case, 7 C. and P. 551 (a); see Cockin's case, 2 Lew. C. C. 235.

Restitution of stolen property.] By the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 57, in order to encourage the prosecution of offenders, it is enacted, "that if any person, guilty of any such felony or misdemeanor as aforesaid, in stealing, taking, obtaining, or converting, or in knowingly receiving any chattel, money, valuable security, or other property whatsoever, shall be indicted for any such offence by or on behalf of the owner of the property or his executor or administrator, and convicted thereof, in such case the property shall be restored to the owner, or his representative; and the court before whom any such person shall be so convicted shall have power to

(a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xxxii. 627.

award, from time to time, writs of restitution for the said property, or to order the restitution thereof in a summary manner: provided always, that if it shall appear before any award or order made, that any valuable security shall have been bona fide paid or discharged by some person or body corporate liable to the payment thereof, or being a negotiable instrument shall have been bona fide taken or received, by transfer or delivery, by some person or body corporte for a just and valuable consideration, without any notice or without any reasonable cause to suspect that the same had, by any felony or misdemeanor, been stolen, taken, obtained, or converted as aforesaid; in such case the court shall not award or order the restitution of such security."

The court cannot, under the above provision, order a Bank of England note, which has been paid and cancelled, to be delivered up to the prosecutrix of an indictment against the party who stole it. Stanton's case, 7 C. and P. 431 (a). Where a prisoner was convicted of stealing money, and it appeared that he had left in the care of another, a horse, which it was clear, from the evidence, he must have purchased with stolen money; Mirehouse, C. S., after consulting Gurney, B., and Williams, J., made an order for the delivery of the horse to the prosecutor. Powell's case, 7 C. and P. 640 (b).

Venue.] An indictment for larceny must be tried in the county in which the offence was, either actually, or in contemplation of law, committed. But where goods stolen in one county are carried by the offender into another, or others, he may be indicted in any of them, for the continu[ *590] ance of the asportation is a new caption (1). *1 Hale, P. C. 507; 4 Bl. Com. 305; 1 Moody, C. C. 47 (n.)(c). The possession still continuing in the owner, every moment's continuance of the trespass is as much a wrong, and may come under the word cepit, as much as the first taking. Hawk. P. C. b. 1, c. 19, s. 52. Though a considerable period elapsed between the original taking and the carrying them into another. county, the rule still applies; as where property was stolen on the 4th November 1823, in Yorkshire, and carried into Durham on the 17th March 1824. Parkin's case, 1 Moody, C. C. 45 (d). This rule does not, however, hold with regard to compound larcenies, in which case the prisoner can only be tried for simple larceny in the second county. Thus, where the prisoner robbed the mail of a letter, either in Wiltshire or Berkshire, and brought it into Middlesex, and was indicted on the statutes, 5 Geo. 2, c. 25, and 7 Geo. 3, c. 40, the judges, upon a case reserved, held that he could not be convicted capitally out of the county in which the letter was taken from the mail. Thompson's case, 2 Russell, 174. So if A. robs B., in the county of C., and carries the goods into the county of D., A. cannot be convicted of robbery in the latter county, but he may be indicted of larceny there. 2 Hale, P. C. 163.

If the thing stolen be altered in its character in the first county, so as to be no longer what it was when it was stolen, an indictment in the second county must describe it according to its altered, and not according to its original state. 2 Russell, 174; see Edwards' case, Russ. and Ry. 497 (e). Thus,

(1) Commonwealth v. Cousins, 2 Leigh, 708. Commonwealth v. Dewitt, 10 Mass. 154. (a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xxxii. 572. (b) Id. 669. (c) 2 Eng. C. C. 47. () Id. 45. (e) 1 ld. 497.

an indictment in the county of H., for stealing "one brass furnace," is not supported by evidence that the prisoner stole the furnace in the county of R., and there broke it to pieces, and brought the pieces into the county of H. Halloway's case, 1 C. and P. 127 (a). If the original taking be such of which the common law cannot take cognizance, as where the goods are stolen at sea, the thief cannot be indicted for larceny in any county into which he may carry them (1). 3 Inst. 113; 2 Russell, 175. And so where the goods are stolen abroad (as in Jersey,) carrying them into an English county will not render the offender indictable there (2). Prowes's case, 1. Moody, C. C. 349 (b). The case of property stolen in any one part of the united kingdom, and carried into any other part, is provided for by the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 76, which enacts, "that if any person, having stolen or otherwise feloniously taken any chattel, money, valuable security, or other property whatsoever, in any one part of the united kingdom, shall afterwards have the same property in his possession in any other part of the united kingdom, he may be dealt with, indicted, tried, and punished for larceny or theft in that part of the united kingdom where he shall so have such property, in the same manner as if he had actually stolen or taken it in that part; and if any person in any one part of the united kingdom shall receive or have any chattel, money, valuable security, or other property whatsoever, which shall have been stolen or otherwise feloniously taken in any other part of the united kingdom, such person knowing the said property to have been stolen or other- [*591 ] wise feloniously taken, he may be dealt with, indicted, tried, and punished for such offence in that part of the united kingdom where he shall so receive or have the said property, in the same manner as if it had been originally stolen or taken in that part."

A joint original larceny in one county may become a separate larceny in another. Thus, where four prisoners stole goods in the county of Gloucester, and divided them in that county, and then carried their shares into the county of Worcester, in separate bags, it was ruled by Holroyd, J., that the joint indictment against all the prisoners could not be sustained as for a joint larceny in the county of Worcester; and he put the counsel for the prosecution to his election, as to which of the prisoners he would proceed against. Barnett's case, 2 Russell, 174. But where a larceny was committed by two, and one of them carried the stolen goods into another county, the other still accompanying him, without their ever having been separated, they were held both indictable in either county, the possession of one being the possession of both in each county, as long as they continued in company. M'Donagh's case, Carr. Suppl. 23, 2d ed.

A man may be indicted for larceny in the county into which the goods are carried, although he did not himself carry them thither. The prisoners, County and Donovan, laid a plan to get some coats from the prosecutrix under pretence of buying them. The prosecutrix had them in Surrey at a public house, the prisoners got her to leave them with Donovan,

(1) Contra, M'Cullough's case, 2 Rogers' Rec. 45.

(2) Larceny committed in one of the U. States is not punishable in another, although the thing stolen be brought into the latter State. State v. Brown, 1 Hayw. 100. People v. Gardner, 2 Johns. 477. People v. Schenck, Id. 479. Commonwealth v. Simmons, 5 Binn. 617. M'Cullough's case, 2 Rogers' Rec. 45. Contra, Commonwealth v. Cullen, 1 Mass. 115. Commonwealth v. Andrews, 2 Id. 14. State v. Ellis, 3 Conn. 185. Rex v. Peas, 1 Root, 69. See People v. Burke, 11 Wend. 129.

(a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xi. 341. (b) 2 Eng. C. C. 349.