224 CASES OF LARCENY BY SERVANTS. 



and puts it into his master's waggon, this is a sufficient asportation 

 {Reg. \. GnnuMJ). 



Again, in Beg. v. Pn'rett and Goodhall, the prisoners, a carter and 

 carter's boy, took from the barn- floor, in the thresher's presence, five 

 sacks of unwinno\Ycd oats, and secreted them in a loft, to give to their 

 master's horses, although they were not answerable at all for the con- 

 dition or appearance of the horses. The jury found that they had no 

 intention of applying the oats to their private benefit ; but nine of the 

 judges held that, on the authority of previous decisions, this was a 

 larceny, though they doubted if they should have so decided if the 

 matter were res iniegra. Erie J. and Piatt B. thought that the taking 

 was not felonious, as the goods were to be applied to the master's use ; 

 and the former decisions proceeded on the supposition that the prisoners 

 would gain by the taking, which was negatived in this case. 



The indictment in Beg. v. Mills was for obtaining money by false 

 pretences. The prisoner had been employed to cut chafi" for the pro- 

 secutor, and was to be paid 2d. per fan for as much as he cut. He 

 made a demand for 10^. 6f/., and said he had cut 63 fans; but the pro- 

 secutor and another witness had seen the prisoner remove 18 fans of 

 cat cliaflf from an adjoining chaff-house, and add them to the heap 

 which he pretended he had cut, thus making the G3 fans for which he 

 charged. Upon the representation that he had cut Go fans of chaff, 

 and notwithstanding his knowledge of the prisoner's having added the 

 18 fans, the prosecutor paid him the \0s. 6d., being Ss. more than the 

 prisoner was really entitled to for the work actually performed. The 

 Court quashed the conviction. And 2^er Curiam : " The question in 

 these cases is, whether the false representation is the motive opera- 

 ting in the mind of the prosecutor, and inducing him to part with his 

 money. It cannot be said that this was the case here, because he paid 

 the money, although he knew the representation to be false. Unless 

 the money be obtained by the false pretence, it is an attempt only. 

 The prosecutor could not recover back the money in a civil action, 

 because it was paid voluntarily, with a knowledge of all the circum- 

 stances." 



One of the earliest cases on the subject of fraudidcnt drovers is Rex 

 v. Stork, which decided that it is larceny for a person hired for the 

 special purpose of driving sheep to a fair, to convert them to his own 

 use, he having the intention so to do at the time of receiving them from 

 the owner. The prisoner, who had never been the prosecutor's servant, 

 though he had been occasionally employed to drive sheep, was hired at 

 Bristol fair to drive fifty sheep to Bradford fair for him for 2s. 6d. per 

 day. lie had never had either ou this or any other occasion authority 



