17th of January, 1870, and that one particular article could not have been taken before March, 1868; but the prosecution abandoned the case as to this article: held, that this was not a case in which the prosecutor should be put to elect upon which articles to proceed, under section 6 of the Larceny Act.-Reg. vs. Henwood, 11 Cox, 526.

On this clause, Greaves remarks:

"Formerly it very often happened on the trial of an iudictment alleging the stealing of a number of articles at the same time, that it turned out that they had been taken at different times, in which case the prosecutor was usually compelled to elect some single taking; such election being required to be made on the spur of the moment, some times led to improper acquittals. The present section is intended to afford a remedy for such cases, and to place such cases in the same position as the cases provided for by the previous section. When, therefore, it appears on the trial of an indictment for stealing a number of goods at the same time, that the goods were taken at different times, the prosecutor is not to be put to elect to proceed on any particular taking, unless it appear that there were more than three takings, or that more than six calendar months intervened between the first and last of such takings, in which case he is to elect such takings, not exceeding three, within the period of six calendar months from the first to the last of such takings. A suggestion has been made, that in some extraordinary cases this may unduly limit the evidence on the part of the prosecution, as it is said that evidence of only three takings will be admissible. This is a fallacy; the clause confines the prosecutor to proceeding to obtain a conviction for three takings, but it does not at all interfere with the admissibility of any evidence that may in

explain the nature If, therefore, a case

the opinion of the Court tend to and character of any of the takings. should occur where a doubt arose whether the evidence as to one or more takings shewed that it was felonious, there can be no doubt that evidence of other takings would be admissible for the purpose of removing such doubt precisely in the same way as heretofore, but not otherwise. (See Reg. vs. Bleasdale, 2 C. & K. 765). In fact the clause empowers the prosecutor to proceed for three takings instead of one without in any respect otherwise altering the evidence that may be admissible."

LARCENY AFTER PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS.

Sect. 7.-Whosoever commits the offence of simple larceny after a previous conviction for felony, whether such conviction has taken place upon an indictment or under the provisions of the Act respecting the prompt and summary administration of Criminal justice in certain cases (32-33 Vict. ch. 32) or of any other Act for like purposes shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding ten years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.-24-25 Vict. ch. 96, sect. 7, Imp.

Sect. 8.-Whosoever commits the offence of simple larceny or any offence hereby made punishable like simple larceny, after having been previously convicted of any indictable misdemeanor punishable under this Act, shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding seven years and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement. -24-25 Vict., ch. 96, sect. 8, Imp.

Sect. 9.-Whosoever commits the offence of simple larceny, or any offence hereby made punishable like simple larceny, after having been twice summarily convicted of any of the offences punishable upon summary conviction under the provisions contained in this Act, or in any former Act or law relating to the same subjects, or in the Act respecting the prompt and summary administration of Criminal justice in certain cases (32-33 Vict. ch. 32) or other Act for like purposes, or in the Act respecting the trial and punishment of juvenile offenders (32-33 Vict. ch. 33) or in the Act respecting malicious injuries to property, (32-33 Vict. ch. 22), whether each of the convictions has been in respect of an offence of the same description or not, and whether such convictions or either of them has been before or after the passing of this Act, is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding seven years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement, for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour and with or without solitary confinement.-24-25 Vict. ch. 96, sect. 9, Imp. As to solitary confinement, see sect. 94, of the Procedure Act of 1869.

As to requiring the offender to enter into recognizances and give sureties for keeping the peace, in cases of felony, see sect. 122, post, of this Act (Larceny Act.)

The form of indictment for a subsequent offence, under these sections, is, in England, governed by sect. 116 of the Larceny Act, but, in Canada, this last clause is omitted from the Larceny Act, and inserted in the Procedure Act of 1869, sect. 26. It is exactly in the same terms, as sect. 116, of the English Larceny Act, and applies, for us, to subsequent offences, under all our Statutes.

BB

LARCENY OF CATTLE AND OTHER ANIMALS.

Sect. 10-Whosoever steals any cattle is guilty of felony, and shall be liable to be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for any term not exceeding fourteen years, and not less than two years, or to be imprisoned in any other gaol or place of confinement for any term less than two years, with or without hard labour, and with or without solitary confinement.-24-25 Vict. ch. 96, sect. 16, Imp. See ante, sect. 1, for the interpretation of the word cattle.

Indictment.-The Jurors for Our Lady the Queen upon their oath present, that J. S. on......at......one horse of the goods and chattels of J. N. feloniously did steal, take and lead away; against the form......If the indictment be for stealing a bull or sheep, &c., say "drive away" instead of "lead away." The indictment must give the animal one of the descriptions mentioned in the Statute; otherwise the defendant can be punished as for simple larceny merely.-R. vs. Beaney, R. & Ry. 416; Archbold, 349.

If a person go to an inn, and direct the ostler to bring out his horse, and point out the prosecutor's horse as his, and the ostler leads out the horse for the prisoner to mount, but, before the prisoner gets on the horse's back, the owner of the horse comes up and seizes him, the offence of horse-stealing is complete.-R. vs. Pitman, 2 C. & P. 243.

The prisoners enter another's stable at night, and take out his horses, and ride them 32 miles, and leave them at an inn, and are afterwards found pursuing their journey on foot. On a finding by the jury that the prisoners took the horses merely with intent to ride and afterwards leave them, and not to return or make any further use

of them, held trespass and not larceny.-R. vs. Philipps and Strong, 2 East P.C. 662.

If a horse be purchased and delivered to the buyer, it is no felony though he immediately ride away with it, without paying the purchase money.-Rex. vs. Harvey, 1 Leach. 467.

If a person stealing other property take a horse, not with intent to steal it, but only to get off more conveniently with the other property, such taking of the horse is not a felony.-Rex. vs. Crump, 1 C. & P. 658.

Obtaining a horse under the pretence of hiring it for a day, and immediately selling it is a felony, if the jury find the hiring was animo furandi.-Rex. vs. Pear, 1 Leach, 212; Rex. vs. Charlewood, 1 Leach. 409. It is larceny (at common law) fora person hired for the special purpose of driving sheep to a fair, to convert them to his own use, the jury having found that he intended so to do, at the time of receiving them from the owner.—Rex. vs. Stock, 1 Moody 87.-Where the defendant removed sheep from the fold, into the open field, killed them, and took away the skins merely, the judges held that removing the sheep from the fold was a sufficient driving away to constitute larceny.-R. vs. Rawlins, 2 East P.C. 617. But it has been questioned, whether the merely removing a live sheep for the purpose of killing it, with intent to steal part of the carcase, was an asportation of the live sheep, as to constitute larceny of it.-R. vs. Williams, 1 Mood, 107.

& P. 176

See 2 Russell, 361, and R. vs. Yend, 6 C.

Any variance between the indictment and the proof, in the description of the animal stolen, may now be amended. Sect. 71, Procedure Act, 1869. Reg. vs. Gumble, 12 Cox, 248.

KILLING ANIMALS WITH INTENT TO STEAL THE CARCASE.

Sect. 11.-Whosoever wilfully kills any animal, with