G2 



FAIRS AND MARKETS OVERT, ETC. 



Taking with 

 an intent to 

 use. 



Possession six 

 months after 



loss. 



Kilhng or 



maiming 



Horses. 



Other ani- 

 mals. 



Pouring acid 

 into a Mare's 

 ear. 



' ' Maiming 

 and wound- 



place ; it was lield nevertlieless that lie was guilty of 

 larceny (*/). 



A taking with the bare intent to use goods, though 

 unlawfully, will be only a trespass if the Jury are satisfied 

 that such was the original intention. Thus, where two 

 persons took two Horses from a stable, rode them to a 

 place at a distance, and there left them, proceeding on 

 foot, and the Jury found that they took the Horses merely 

 to forward them on their journey, and not to make any 

 further use of them, this was held not to be a larceny {<j). 

 And if a person stealing other property, takes a Horse not 

 with the intent to steal it, but only to get off more con- 

 veniently with the other property which he has stolen, 

 such taking of the Horse is not a felony {h). 



Where a man is found in possession of a thing after a 

 lapse of six or seven months from the time when it was 

 lost, and there is no other evidence against him but that 

 possession, he ought not to be called on to account for it. 

 Thus, where a Mare, which had been lost in December, 

 was not found in the prisoner's possession till the June or 

 July following, it was held that his possession was not 

 sufficiently recent to put him on his defence (/). 



By 24 & 25 Yiet. c. D7, s. 40 (A-), the malicious kill- 

 ing, maiming or wounding of any cattle is felony. And 

 the word " cattle," which alone is mentioned in the act, 

 has been held under former acts to include Horses (/), as 

 well as oxen, &c., pigs {m) and asses {n). 



By section 41 of the same statute, the malicious killing, 

 maiming or wounding of other animals is made punishable 

 by imprisonment or fine. 



Where a person had poured nitrous acid into a Mare's 

 ear, and some had run into her eyes and blinded her, and 

 the injuries produced to the ear were ulcers not wounds, 

 though such ulcers would have tm-ned to wounds, a con- 

 viction for maiming was held right (o). 



The distinction between maiming [p) and wounding [q) 



(/) Ecg. V. Jaiison, 4 Cox, C. C. 

 82, overruling Eeg. v. lirooks, 8 C. 

 & P. 295. 



iff) Rex V. PhilUps, 2 East, P. C. 

 c. 16, s. 98. 



[h) Rexv. Crump, 1 C. & P. 658. 



(;■) Per Maule, J., Set/, v. Cooper, 

 16 Jur. 750. 



{k) Repealing but re-enacting 7 

 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, s. 16. 



(0 Rex V. Tatei/, 2 W. Bla. 721. 



{m) Rex V. Chappie, R. & P. 77. 



(«) Rex V. Whitneij, 1 Mood. C. 

 C. 3. 



(o) Oweti's case, 1 Mood. C. C. 

 205. 



{p) R. V. Jeans, 1 C. & K. 539. 



{q) R. V. JIai/H-ood, Puss. & 

 Pyan, 16. 



