ishment by fine or imprisonment, or by both, as to the court shall seem meet: Provided always that nothing herein contained shall extend to the opening or detaining or delaying of a post letter returned for want of a true direction, or of a post letter returned by reason that the person to whom the same shall be directed, is dead or cannot be found, or shall have refused the same, or shall have refused or neglected to pay the postage thereof; nor to the opening or detaining or delaying of a post letter in obedience to an express warrant in writing under the hand (in Great Britain) of one of the principal secretaries of state, and in Ireland under the hand and seal of the lord lieutenant of Ireland."

Offences by officers employed in the post-office-stealing, embezzling, secreting, or destroying letters.] By sect. 26, "every person employed under the post-office who shall steal, or shall for any purpose whatever, embezzle, secrete, or destroy, a post letter, shall in England and Ireland. be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and shall, at the discretion of the court, either be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years, or be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years; and if any such post letter so stolen or embezzled, secreted, or destroyed, shall contain therein any chattel or money whatsoever, or any valuable security, every such offender shall be transported beyond the seas for life."

Offences by officers employed in the post-office-stealing or embezzling printed votes, newspapers, &c.] By sect. 32, "for the protection of printed votes and proceedings in parliament and printed newspapers," it is enacted, that "every person employed in the post-office who shall steal, or shall for any purpose embezzle, secrete, or destroy, or shall wilfully detain or delay in course of conveyance or delivery thereof by the post, any printed votes or proceedings in parliament, or any printed newspaper, or any other printed paper whatever sent by the post without covers, or in covers open at the sides, shall in England and Ireland be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland of a crime and offence, and being convicted thereof shall suffer such punishment by fine or imprisonment, or by both, as to the court shall seem meet."

Proof of being employed by or under the post-office.] The employment of the offender "by or under the post-office" must be proved. It is not necessary in these cases to produce the actual appointment of the prisoner, it is sufficient to show that he acted in the capacity imputed to him. Borrett's case, 6 C. and P. 124 (a); Rees' case, Id. 606 (b). The prisoner was indicted on the 7 Geo. 3, c. 50, (which stated the special capacities of the parties employed in the post-office), in the first and third counts, as "a person employed in sorting and charging letters in the post-office," and in the second and fourth counts, as [ *784 ] "a person employed in the business relating to the general post-office;' it appeared that he was only a sorter and not a charger, and he was convicted on the second and fourth counts only. It was objected that as he was acquitted on the counts charging him as a sorter and charger, and it was not proved that he was employed in any other capacity than that of

(a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xxv. 312. (b) Id. 559.

sorter, he ought not have been convicted on the second and fourth counts. The judges thought the objection valid, but were inclined to be of opinion that the prisoner might have been properly convicted upon the first and third counts by a special finding, that he was a sorter only. Shaw's case, 2 East, P. C. 580; 2 W. Bl. 789; 1 Leach, 79. In a subsequent case where the prisoner was described as a post-boy and rider, and was proved to be only a post-boy, being convicted, the judges held the the conviction right, saying that a post-boy, riding on horseback was a rider as well as a post-boy. Ellins's case, Russ. and Ry. 188 (a). A person employed at the receiving-house of the general post-office to clean boots, &c., and who occasionally assisted in tying up the letter-bags, was held not to be a person employed by the post-office within the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2. Pearson's case, 4 C. and P. 572 (b).

Where the prisoner was employed by a post-mistress to carry letters from D. to B., at a weekly salary paid him by the post-mistress, which was repaid to her by the post-office, it was held that he was a person employed by the post-office within the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, s. 2. Salisbury's case, 5 C. and P. 155 (c). In the above case, Patteson, J., was inclined to think that the words "whilst employed," in the second section, merely meant that the party should be then in the employ of the post-office, and not that the letter stolen should be in the party's hands in the course of his duty. Ibid.

Proof of opening or detaining letters.] It must be proved that the defendant opened or detained a letter according to the allegation in the indictment. In answer to the charge, the defendant may show any of the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to the 25th section, which authorize him to open or detain the letter.

Proof of stealing, embezzling, secreting, or destroying letters.] Prove a larceny of a letter, or of a letter containing money, &c., as the case may be. The ownership of the property need not be proved, but may be laid in the postmaster-general; neither need it be shown to be of any value. To bring the case within the statute, the letter must be a "post-letter." As to what is to be considered a "post-letter" and what a delivery to the post-office, see the interpretation clause, post, p. 790.

Where the charge is for embezzling, &c., the prosecutor must prove that the prisoner either embezzled, secreted, or destroyed the letter described. Where the prisoner secreted half a bank-note on one day, and the other half on another day, it was held to be a secreting of the note [ *785 ] within the 7 Geo. 3, c. 50. The doubt was, *whether secreting in the statute did not mean the original secreting, as taking does; but the judges distinguished between taking and secreting, for after the prisoner had got possession of the second letter, he secreted both. Moor's case, 2 East, P. C. 582. The statute 52 Geo. 3, mentioned, "any part of any bill," &c. The secreting will be proved in general by circumstantial evidence. See as to concealment of effects by Bankrupts, ante, p. 272.

Where such is the charge, it must appear that the letter contained some chattel, money, or valuable security. Where the letter embezzled was described as containing several notes, it was held sufficient to prove that it

(a) 1 Eng. C. C. 188. (b) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xix. 533. (c) ld. xxiv. 253.

contained any one of them, the allegation not being descriptive of the letter, but of the offence. Ellins' case, Russ. and Ry. 188 (a). It is not necessary to prove the execution of the instruments which the letter is proved to contain. Ibid. Country bank notes paid in London, and not reissued, were held within the 7 Geo. 3. They were said to be valuable to the possessors of them, and available against the makers of them, and fell within both the words and meaning of the act. Ransom's case, Russ. and Ry. 232 (b); 2 Leach, 1090. Upon an indictment under the 7 Geo. 3, it was held that a bill of exchange might be described as a warrant for the payment of money, as in cases of forgery. Willoughby's case, 2 East, P. C. 581. Neither the former statutes nor the 52 Geo. 3, contained the word "coin" or "money." The prisoner was indicted under the former statutes for stealing 58. 3d. in gold coin, (being a sorter in the post-office,) and it was objected that as the letters contained money, and not securities for money, the case was not within the acts, and the Court (at the Old Bailey) being of this opinion, the prisoner was acquitted. Skutt's case, 2 East, P. C. 582. The security specified in the statute must be valid and available, and therefore a draft purporting to be drawn in London, but drawn in Maidstone, and having no stamp upon it pursuant to the 31 Geo. 3, c. 25, was held not to be a draft within the 7 Geo. 3, c. 50. Pooley's case, Russ. and Ry. 12 (c), 2 Leach, 887; 3 Bos. and Pul. 311.

It seems that the contents of the letter secreted, &c. will not be evidence as against the prisoner to prove that the letter contained the valuable security mentioned in it. Plumer's case, Russ. and Ry. 264 (d). The letter in question had marked upon it "paid 2s." which was the rate of double postage. This was written by the clerk of the writer of the letter, who paid the postage, but was not called. There being no other proof of the double postage, the judges held the conviction wrong. Plumer's case, Russ. and Ry. 264 (e).

The prisoner having been indicted under the 5 Geo. 3 and 7 Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 3, the jury found specially that he was a person employed by the post-office, in stamping and facing letters, and that he secreted a letter which came into his hands by virtue of his office, containing a £10 note, but that he did not open the same, nor know that the bank-note was contained therein, but that he secreted it with intent to defraud the King of the postage, which had been paid. The prisoner, it is said, remained in prison several years, but no *judgment appears to have been [ *786] given. Sloper's case, 2 East, P. C. 583; 1 Leach, 81.

Offences by other parties-stealing money or valuable securities out of letters.] By the 7 Wm. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 27, "every person who shall steal from or out of a post letter any chattel or money, or valuable security, shall in England and Ireland be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and shall be transported beyond the seas for life."

Although it was held, that a person in the employ of the post-office was not within the second section of the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, yet such a person might be indicted and convicted under the third section for stealing a let

(a) 1 Eng. C. C. 188. (b) Id. 232. (c) Id. 12. (d) Id. 264. (c) Id. 264.

ter.

Brown's case, Russ. and Ry. 32 (a) (n.); Salisbury's case, 5 C. and P. 155 (b).

Offences by other parties-stealing letter-bags and letters sent by the mail, &c.] By the 7 Wm. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 28, "every person who shall steal a post letter bag, or a post letter from a post letter bag, or shall steal a post letter from a post office, or from an officer of the postoffice, or from a mail, or shall stop a mail with intent to rob or search the same, shall in England and Ireland be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and shall be transported beyond the seas for life."

Where the prisoner, with intent to steal the mail bags, pretended to be the guard, and procured them to be let down to him from the window by a string, and carried them away; being indicted on the 7 Geo. 3, and found guilty, all the judges held the conviction right, on a count for stealing the letters out of the post-office; for his artifice in obtaining the delivery of them in the bag out of the house, was the same as if he had actually taken them out himself. Pearce's case, 2 East, P. C. 603. Upon the same statute, (7 Geo. 3,) it was held, that a letter carrier taking letters out of the office, intending to deliver them to the owners, but to embezzle the postage, could not be indicted for stealing such letters. Howard's case, 2 East, P. C. 604.

The above statute made it an offence to steal from the possession, (not from the person) of persons employed to convey letters, &c. Therefore, where a mail-rider, after fixing the portmanteau containing the letters on his horse, fastened his horse at the post-office, and went to a house about thirty yards distant for his great coat, and in the meantime the prisoner came and stole the letters, it was held by Wood, B., that the case was within the statute, for that the letters had been in the possession of the mail-rider, and that possession had never been abandoned. Robinson's case, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 485 (c).

With regard to what was to be considered a "post-office" within the above statute, it was held, that a "receiving-house" was not such, but such house was "a place for the receipt of letters" within the act; and, if a shop, the whole shop was to be considered as "a place for the re[*787] ceipt of letters," and, therefore, the putting of a letter on the shop counter, or giving it to a person belonging to the shop, was a putting into the post. Pearson's case, 4 C. and P. 572 (d). See now post, p. 792.

To complete the offence under the 4th section of the 52 Geo. 3, c. 143, of stealing a letter from the place of receipt, it was held, that the letter should be carried wholly out of the shop, and, therefore, if a person opened a letter in the shop, and there stole the contents without taking the letter out of the shop, the case was not within the statute. Pearson's case, supra.

Offences by other parties-stealing, &c. letter-bags and letters sent by a post-office packet.] By the 7 Wm. 4 and 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 29, every person who shall steal or unlawfully take away a post letter bag sent by a post-office packet, or who shall steal or unlawfully take a letter

66

(a) 1 Eng. C. C. 32. (b) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xxiv. 253. (c) Id. iii. 443. (d) Id. xix. 533.

out of any such bag, or shall unlawfully open any such bag, shall in England and Ireland be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and shall be transported beyond the seas for any term not exceeding fourteen years."

Offences by other parties-fraudulently retaining letters, &c.] By sect. 31, reciting that " post letters are sometimes by mistake delivered to the wrong person, and post letters and post letter bags are lost in the course of conveyance or delivery thereof, and are detained by the finders in expectation of gain or reward;" it is enacted, "that every person who shall fraudulently retain, or shall wilfully secrete, or keep, or detain, or being required to deliver up by an officer of the post-office, shall neglect or refuse to deliver up a post letter which ought to have been delivered to any other person, or a post letter bag or post letter which shall have been sent, whether the same shall have been found by the person secreting, keeping, or detaining, or neglecting or refusing to deliver up the same, or by any other person, shall in England and Ireland be guilty of a misdemeanor, and in Scotland of a crime and offence, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment."

This is a new enactment to meet Mucklow's case, ante, p. 542.

Offences by other parties-forging the name or handwriting of the receiver-general, &c. of the post-office.] By sect. 33, "every person who shall knowingly and wilfully forge or counterfeit, or cause or procure to be forged or counterfeited, the name or handwriting of the receiver-general for the time being of the general post-office in England or Ireland, or of any person employed by or under him, to any draft, instrument, or writing whatsoever, for or in order to the receiving or obtaining of any money in the hands or custody of the governor and company of the Bank of England or Ireland on account of the receiver-general of the post-office, or shall forge or alter, or shall offer, utter, dispose of, or put off, knowing the same to be forged or altered, any draft, warrant, or order of such receiver-general, or of any person employed by or under him, for money or for payment of money, with intent to defraud any person whomsoever, *shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted there- [788] of shall be transported beyond the seas for life."

Offences by other parties-forging or altering franks.] By sec. 34, every person who shall forge or counterfeit the handwriting of another person in the superscription of a post letter, or who shall alter or change upon a post letter the superscription thereof, or who shall write or send by the post, or cause to be written or sent by the post, a letter, the superscription whereof in whole or in part shall be forged, or counterfeited, or altered, knowing the same to be forged, counterfeited, or altered, with intent in either of those cases to avoid the payment of the duty of postage, shall in England and Ireland be guilty of felony, and in Scotland of a high crime and offence, and being convicted thereof, shall be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years.'

The privilege of franking, however, has recently been abolished under the provisions of the 2 and 3, Vict. c. 52.

Accessaries and procurers.] By the 7 Wm. 4 and 1 Vict. c 36, s.

93