Page:Facts, failures and frauds- revelations, financial, mercantile, criminal.djvu/111

TACTS, TAILUBES, AND FEATIDS. 99 body with the possession and management of property of this description the act of any person, notwithstanding he might be a proprietor, dispossessing persons in that position of the property so entrusted to them, amounted to larceny. The case would have been difficult if the property had been laid in the company generally, but here it was alleged to be in the persons whose names were mentioned; and they were clearly of opinion that this was sufficient to support the charge of larceny.

Mr. Justice then addressed the Attorney-General, and said, that this point of law being disposed of, he should wish to know what facts he relied upon to support the charge in the indictment.

The said, he considered the paying in of the cheque to the prisoner's bankers, and the erasure of the entry in the pass-book, were strong facts for the consideration of the jury.

Mr. Justice remarked, that there was no evidence that such a cheque as the one in question had ever been drawn by the Globe Company, or had ever been in existence.

The submitted, that some such instrument, whether a genuine one or not he could not of course pretend to say, was clearly proved to have existed, and to be in the possession of the prisoner, and he had had notice to produce it.

Mr. Justice asked, that supposing it had existed, and was a genuine instrument, what proof was there that the prisoner had stolen it? What evidence was there to show that he might not have obtained it in the regular course of his affairs from the person who was really entitled to it?

The said, that that was evidence for the jury to consider. He then proceeded to contend that, supposing the Court should reject the counts describing the instrument as a valuable security, there was ample evidence to support those which charged the prisoner with stealing a piece of paper, the messenger having clearly proved that he delivered the cancelled cheque to the prisoner, who had afterwards made away with it, and this, he submitted, was sufficient to support the charge of larceny.

Mr. Justice, after some further discussion, said, he would let the case go to the jury upon the count for stealing a piece of paper, although at the same time ho must say he believed his ruling would be wrong. It would, however, be the means of carrying the question before the new Court of Appeal, where it would be disposed of without delay, if the jury, upon his ruling, should say that the prisoner was guilty. The counsel for the prisoner would, of course, however, have the right to address the jury upon the facts.

Mr. accordingly briefly addressed the jury, and commenced by observing that in the course of his experience he had never before seen a case for a prosecution introduced in such a mysterious and extraordinary manner as this had been; and he submitted that it was quite clear the