1792.

OWEN'S CASE.

money he had advanced, was proved to be worth no more than half-a-guinea.

It was objected that this was not a case within 12 Ann. c. 7. because Foreman was neither the owner of, nor a settled inhabitant in the house in which the money was taken; and that it must be taken as if the property has been stolen out of his pocket, or otherwise taken from his person, without any deceit; for that the statute was only intended to protect money, goods or chattels, wares or merchandises of the value of forty shillings or more, usually kept or deposited in the house as contradistinguished from property under the protection of the person; and the case of Rex v. Campbell was cited as an authority in point.

THE JURY found the prisoner Guilty; but the judgment was respited, and the case reserved for the opinion of THE twelve Judges, on a question, Whether, as this was a taking from the person of Foreman, though in the dwelling-house of Brady, the prisoner was ousted of his clergy under the statute of the 12 Ann. c. 7.

MR. JUSTICE ASHHURST, in February Session 1793, said that the Judges were of opinion, that the prisoner was not, under the circumstances of this case, deprived of his clergy by the 12 Ann. c. 7.; and that this opinion was founded on the authority of the case of Rex v. Campbell, in January Session 1792, for that to bring a case within this statute, the property stolen must be under the protection of the house; and deposited therein for safe custody; as the furniture, plate, money kept in the house, and not things immediately under the eye or personal care of some one who happens to be in the house (a).

(a) See S. P. Campbell's Case, ante, p. 564, Case 253; and the same point was again ruled in a similar case of Rex v. Castledine, before MR. JUSTICE BULLER, at the Old Bailey, in October Session 1792, which was also referred to the JUDGES; and again in Watson's Case, Old Bailey, December 1794, post.

1792.

THE KING against ISAAC MOORE.

THE

CASE CCLVII.

two letters sent by the post on different days, each letter containing half of

the same Bank

c. 50. and he

dicted "that he having the said two let

crete the said

AT the Old Bailey in September Session 1792, Isaac Moore If a Letter-carwas tried before MR. BARON HOTHAM, present MR. JUSTICE rier secrete GOULD, upon an indictment which stated that he, "Isaac Moore, on the 23d June in the 32d year of GEORGE THIRD, was a Letter-carrier employed in carrying letters and packets from the General Post-office, &c. to a certain street called Charlton-street in Mary-le-bone, AND THAT on the note, it is a capital offence 23d June aforesaid, at and in the said General Post-office, within the tatwo certain letters then lately before sent by William Collier tute 7 Geo.III. by the post from Silsoe in the county of Bedford, and directed may be inTo Charles Quin of Charlton street in the parish of Maryle-bone in the county of Middlesex,' then containing therein a certain Bank-note, marked No. 1967, dated London, 9th ters containing the said BankFebruary 1792, signed and subscribed by Giles Collins for note, did se the Governor and Co. of the Bank of England, promising letters, &c." to pay to one Abraham Newland or bearer, on demand the S. C. 2 East, sum of £10. THE TENOR of which, &c. Which said two 582. letters had come to the hands and possession of the said Isaac Moore, then and there being a Letter-carrier so employed as aforesaid, to be by him the said Isaac Moore, as such Lettercarrier, delivered, &c. and that he being, &c. and having the said two letters containing the said Bank-note in his hands and possession, feloniously did secrete the said letters then and there containing the said Bank-note, &c." A second. count laid it to be the property of Charles Quin. A third and fourth count called them "two certain packets," laying them respectively to be the property, 1st, of William Collier; 2dly, of Charles Quin. There were four other counts, alleging, in the singular number," a certain letter," a certain packet, the property of William Collier and Charles Quin respectively."

THE prosecutor William Collier resided at Pullock's Hill in Bedfordshire; the nearest post-town to which is Silsoe. On the 21st June 1792 he inclosed, among others, one half

1792.

MOORE'S

CASE.

of the Bank-note stated in the indictment, in a letter directed "To Charles Quin, No. 19, Charlton-street, Mary-le-bone," and put the letter into the Silsoe bag. On the succeeding day, viz. the 22d June 1792, he sent the other half of the said Bank-note, in a letter directed to the same person, by the same conveyance. It was proved by the Post-master of Silsoe, that the Silsoe bag was regularly made up on the 21st and 22d of June, and conveyed, in the usual course, from thence to Luton, and so on through St. Alban's to the General Post-office in London, where they respectively arrived on the 22d and 23d June; and that on those days the letters directed for Charlton-street, Mary-le-bone, were delivered to the prisoner as the Letter-carrier of that district; but no such letters ever reached Mr. Quin's hands. The Bank-note, in two halves joined, was found in the possession of the prisoner on the 23d June, at half past nine o'clock in the evening.

THE statute 7 Geo. III. c. 50. s. 1. after reciting that it is of the utmost importance to the trade and commerce of these kingdoms, that all letters, packets, bank-notes, bills of exchange, and other things, may be sent and conveyed by the post with the greatest safety and security, ENACTS, "That if any deputy, clerk, agent, letter-carrier, post-boy, or rider, or any other officer or person whatsoever, employed in receiving, stamping, sorting, charging, carrying, conveying or delivering letters or packets, or in any other business relating to THE POST-OFFICE, shall secrete, embezzle or destroy any letter or letters, packet or packets, bag or mail of letters, which he, she or they shall be respectively intrusted with, or which shall have come to his, her or their hands or possession, containing any Bank-note, Bank-post-bill, bill of exchange, &c. every such offender shall suffer death without benefit of clergy."

KNOWLYS, for the prisoner, submitted to the Court, that the present case was not within the words of the statute, inasmuch as it was confined throughout to the secreting or embezzling of any letter or letters containing any Bank-note,

and that here there was no letter that did contain a Banknote.

MR. BARON HOTHAM and MR. JUSTICE GOULD were of opinion that this was a case that required the consideration of the Judges.

1792.

MOORE'S

CASE

LORD LOUGHBOROUGH, in the December Session following, delivered their opinion. On the trial of this indictment a doubt arose, Whether, on the facts disclosed, the prisoner has committed an offence within the terms and meaning of the statute 7 Geo. III. c. 50. It appeared in evidence, that the Bank-note had been cut into two parts; that one part of it was inclosed in a letter sent one day; that the other part of it was inclosed in another letter, and sent the next postday; and that the two letters, each containing a part of this Bank-note, were secreted by the prisoner. It was contended for the prisoner, that as these two several parts of the Banknote were contained in different letters, and the letters secreted at two several and distinct periods of time, each secreting must be taken to be a separate and distinct act, neither of them amounting to the offence described in the statute, inasmuch as the prisoner had not at any one time secreted any letter or letters containing a Bank-note. BUT Buller J. was all the Judges who were present, are of opinion that the doubted. offence, as stated in the indictment and proved by the evidence, falls, both in form and substance, directly within the meaning of the first section of the statute, which has put persons thus entrusted with letters under a specific and peculiar law. The charge is not the stealing of the letter, but the secreting of the note contained in the letters during their transitory state by the public conveyance of the kingdom. The statute seems to have been worded with great caution and wisdom; for it includes persons of every description, of every office, and in every capacity that may by any possibility be employed in or about the business of the post-offices: "if any deputy, clerk, agent, letter-carrier, post-boy, or rider, or any other officer or person whatsoever, employed in receiving, stamping, sorting, charging, carrying, conveying or delivering letters or packets, or in any other business relating

absent, and

1792.

MOORE'S

CASE.

to the post-office, shall secrete (a), embezzle or destroy any letter or letters, packet or packets, bag, or mail of letters containing any Bank-note, Bank post bill, bill of exchange, or shall steal and take out of any letter or packet that shall have come into his possession, &c. any such Bank-note, Bank-bill, &c. he shall be guilty of felony, &c." Now it is clear that the prisoner secreted the letters in which this note was contained; and that these letters came into his custody as a letter-carrier; for he secreted two certain letters, before sent by the post, in which two letters a Bank-note was then contained, and by that means he secreted letters containing a Bank-note, which is the offence charged in the indictment, and expressed by the words of the statute, and to which charge the evidence alone applies. The Judges, therefore, are of opinion that the prisoner is rightly convicted (b);

AND, at the close of the Session, the prisoner received sentence of Death.

(a) The doubt was whether secreting in the statute did not mean the original secreting, as taking does. But they distinguished between taking and secreting; for after the prisoner got possession of the second letter, he secreted both.

(b) And now by 42 Geo. III. c. 81. it is made a capital offence in any of the persons mentioned in 7 Geo. III. c. 50. s. 1. to secrete, embezzle or destroy, any letter or letters, &c. containing any part or parts of any such security or instrument as mentioned in 7 Geo. III. or to steal or take out of any such letter any such security or instrument. And by 52 Geo. III.c. 143. ss. 2.3 & 4. (which enacts that in all cases where any act is done in breach of any revenue law making the offence a capital felony, such act shall be deemed within benefit of clergy unless otherwise declared by this Act), this offence is extended to aiders and abettors therein, and both principals and accessaries made liable to capital punishment.

CASE CCLVIII.

for a misde

THE KING against J. BAXTER.

An indictment IN the King's Bench in Michaelmas Term 1792, the defendmeanour on the ant was indicted and convicted on the statute 22 Geo. III. 22 Geo. III. c.

58. against a receiver of stolen goods, need not aver that the principal has not been convicted. S. C. 5 Term Rep. ss. S. C. 2 East, 781.