purpose. It was so taken up by him: held, larceny in such party.-Reg. vs. Williams, 1 C. & K. 195.

3.—The taking, where the possession of the goods has been obtained bonâ fide without any fraudulent intention in the first instance.-If the party obtained possession of the goods lawfully, as upon a trust for, or on account of, the owner, by which he acquires a special property therein, he cannot at common law be afterwards guilty of felony in converting them to his own use, unless by some new and distinct act of taking, as, by severing part of the goods from the rest, with intent to convert them to his own use, he thereby determines the privity of the bailment and the special property thereby conferred upon him.-1 Hale,504; 2 East P. C. 554.

But now, by sect. 3 of 32-33 Vict., ch. 21, it is pro vided that: "Whosoever being a bailee of any chattel, money or valuable security, fraudulently takes or converts the same to his own use or to the use of any person other than the owner thereof, although he do not break bulk or otherwise determine the bailment, is guilty of larceny, and may be convicted thereof upon an indictment for larceny; but this section shall not extend to any offence punishable on summary conviction."

See R. vs. Wells, 1 F. & F. 109, where it was held that a carrier who receiving money to procure goods, obtained and duly delivered the goods, but fraudulently retained the money, may be convicted of larceny as a bailee.

A man cannot, however, be convicted of larceny as a bailee, unless the bailment was to re-deliver the very same chattel or money.-R. vs. Hoare, 1 F. & F. 647; R vs. Garrett, 2 F. & F. 14; R. vs. Hassall, L. & C. 58.

The prisoner was intrusted by the prosecutor with money to buy a load of coals, which were to be brought

Y

to the prosecutor's by the prisoner in his own cart, the prisoner being paid for his services including the use of his horse and cart. He bought a load of coals in his own name, and on the way to the prosecutor's abstracted a portion of the coal and converted it to his own use, delivering the rest of the coal to the prosecutor as and for the whole load. Held, that he was rightly convicted of larceny as a bailee.-R. vs. Bunkall, L. & C. 371; 9 Cox

419.

A carrier employed by the prosecutor to deliver in his, the prisoner's, cart, a boat's cargo of coals to persons named in a list, to whom only he was authorized to deliver them, and, having fraudulently sold some of the coals and appropriated the proceeds, is properly convicted of larceny as a bailee.—Reg. vs. Davies, 10 Cox, 239.

It seems that a married woman may be a bailee within the meaning of sect. 3 of the Larceny Act, R. vs. Robson, L. & C. 93, notwithstanding a previous ruling to the contrary by Martin, B., in R. vs. Denmour, 8 Cox, 440.

See, post, remarks under section 3 of the Larceny Act. 4.-The taking where the offender has more than a special property in the goods. If the goods of a husband be taken with the consent or privity of the wife, it is not larceny. —R. vs. Harrison, 1 Leach, 47; R. vs. Avery, Bell, 150.

However, it is said that if a woman steal the goods of her husband, and give them to her avowterer, who, knowing it, carries them away, the avowterer is guilty of felony; Dalt. c. 104. And where a stranger took the goods of the husband jointly with the wife, this was holden to be larceny in him, he being her adulterer.-R. vs. Tolfree, 1 Mood. 243, overruling R. vs. Clarke, 1 Mood. 376, note a

Also, in Reg. vs. Featherstone, Dears. 369; the prisoner was charged with stealing twenty-two

sovereigns and some wearing apparel. The prosecutor's wife took from the prosecutor's bedroom thirty-five sovereigns and some articles of clothing, and left the house, saying to the prisoner, who was in a lower room, "It's all right, come on." The prisoner and the prosecutor's wife were afterwards seen together, and were traced to a public house, where they slept together. When taken into custody, the prisoner had twenty-two sovereigns on him. The jury found the prisoner guilty on the ground that he received the sovereigns from the wife, knowing that she took them without the authority of her husband. Upon a case reserved, it was held that the conviction was right. Lord Campbell, C. J., in delivering the judgment said: "We are of opinion that this conviction is right. The general rule of law is, that a wife cannot be found guilty of larceny for stealing the goods of her husband, and that is upon the principle that the husband and wife are, in the eye of the law, one person; but this rule is properly and reasonably qualified when she becomes an adulteress. She thereby determines her quality of wife, and her property in her husband's goods ceases."-See Reg. vs. Berry, Bell, 95, where the same principle was maintained.

And so it is, even though no adultery has been committed, but the goods are taken with the intent that the wife shall elope and live in adultery with the stranger.R. vs. Tollett, C. & Mar. 112; R. vs. Thompson, 1 Den.

549.

And if a servant, by direction of his master's wife, carries off his master's property, and the servant and wife go off together with the property with the intention of committing adultery, the servant may be indicted for stealing the property.-R. vs. Mutters, L. & C. 511.

It seems, however, that if a wife elopes with an adul

terer, it is no larceny in the adulterer to assist in carrying away her necessary wearing apparel.-R. vs Fitch, Dears. & B. 187, overruling on this point the direction of Coleridge, J., in R. vs. Tollett, cited supra.

The prisoner who had lodged at the prosecutor's house left it, and the next day, the prosecutor's wife also left, taking a bundle with her, which, however, was not large enough to contain the things which, the evening she left, it was found had been taken from the house. Two days after, all the things were found in the prisoner's cabin, or on his person, in a ship in which the prosecutor's wife was, the prisoner and the prosecutor's wife having taken their passage in the ship as man and wife. It was held that from these facts the jury were justified in drawing the inference that the prisoner had received the property, knowing it to have been stolen.— R. vs. Deer, L. & C. 240.

But an adulterer cannot be convicted of stealing the goods of the husband brought by the wife to his house, in which the adultery is afterwards committed, merely upon evidence of their being there, unless they be traced to his personal possession.-R. vs. Rosenberg, 1 C. & K. 233; Archbold, 342.

The prisoner eloped with the prosecutor's wife, travelling in a cart which the wife took from her husband's yard. The prisoner sold the pony, cart and harness in the presence of the wife, who did not object to the sale and received the proceeds which she retained after paying the prisoner a sovereign he had expended in obtaining lodging while they were living in a state of adultery. Held, that the presence of the woman did not alter the offence; that the fact that he negotiated the sale and received part of the proceeds, was sufficient; from the circumstances, the prisoner must have known that the

pony, cart and harness were not the property of the woman; and that if the jury were of opinion he had that knowledge, they were bound to convict him. By Lush, J., in Reg. vs. Harrison, 12 Cox, 19.

Under certain circumstances, indeed, a man may commit felony of his own goods; as if A bail goods to B and afterwards, animo furandi, steal the goods from B with design to charge him for the value of them, this is felony.-1 Hale, 513; 2 East P. C. 558.

So where A having delivered money to his servant to carry to a certain place, disguised himself and robbed the servant on the road, with intent to charge the hundred, this was held robbery in A.-2 East P. C. 558.

If a man steal his own goods from his own bailee, though he has no intent to charge the bailee, but his intent is to defraud the king, yet, if the bailee had an interest in the possession and could have withheld it from the owner, the taking is a larceny.-R. vs. Wilkinson, R. & R. 470. But it is said in Roscoe, Cr. evid. 597: "It may be doubted whether the law has not been somewhat distorted in this case in order to punish a flagrant fraud."

Bishop, 2 Cr. L. 790, says: "If one, therefore, has transferred to another a special property in goods, retaining in himself the general ownership, or, if the law has made such transfer, he commits larceny by taking them with felonious intent."

So if a man steal his goods in custodiâ legis. But "if the goods stolen were the general property of the defendant, who took them from the possession of one to whose care they had been committed, as, for instance from an officer seizing them on an execution against the defendant, it must be shown that the latter knew of