J226 LARCENY BY DROVERS. 



general clmractcr and employment as a drover, and that without any 

 breach of his duty as such, he might have declined taking upon himself 

 the burthen or risk attendant on his taking charge of the money. Nine 

 of the judges, however, were of opinion that the prisoner was a servant 

 within tlie meaning of the Act 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, s. 47, and that the 

 conviction was right. 



The next case on the subject was Baj. v. }Vm. Goodboily. The prisoner 

 was indicted for stealing six oxen from a farmer and grazier, who had 

 known him several years, and had employed liim once or twice before. 

 He was sent with eight oxen, which were left unsold at St. Ives market, 

 and told that if he could sell them on the road he might, but that those 

 lie did not sell were to be taken on to Smithfield to one Mr. Pollett, the 

 prosecutor's salesman. On cross-examination the prosecutor said he 

 did not know whether the prisoner drove other cattle on that occasion, 

 though he was at liberty to do so : there is a regular charge for drovers ; 

 so much per head for cattle driven, and so much for cattle sold. Two 

 of the beasts he sold on his way to London, and took the remaining six 

 to Smithfield, wdiere he sold them, and received the money through a 

 ►Smithfield bank. One of the witnesses for the prosecution said the 

 prisoner was a salesman as well as a drover. J\Ir. Pollett was called as 

 a witness, and stated that he never received the beasts. He added : 

 " It is the duty of the drover to deliver them to our drover, and next 

 morning to come and see that we have them : it is no part of his duty 

 to sell them in iSmithfield. The prisoner had twice before delivered the 

 prosecutor's beasts to my drover." The Court held that there was no 

 proof that the prisoner was the servant of the prosecutor, and there 

 being no felonious taking in the first instance, the indictment could not 

 be sustained. 



The suhjecf of felonious intention was much considered in Regina v. 

 Georeje Heij, which shook Rex v. Bernard Mac Xamee. On September 

 26, 1848, the prosecutors, two pig-jobbers at Newcastle, having bought 

 pigs which they tliought would suit Goose, a pig-dealer at Leeds, 

 engaged the defendant, a butcher and drover at Newcastle, to go by 

 rail and deliver them to Goose (bringing back the amount in a post- 

 office (jrder or a check) on showing him a certain paper. No orders of 

 any kind were given him to sell the pigs in case Goose refused to take 

 them. At a.m. on the 27th, he went to the house of Goose, who was 

 not at home. Mrs. Goose, on hearing him, called up a man, to whom 

 she referred him. The latter merely looked out of the window, and 

 said, "Is that you?''' and then shutting it up retired, as if to bed. 

 Between 6 and 7 that morning the prisoner called up a pork-butcher, 

 sold the pigs to him, absconded with the £35, and said nothing to the 



