« PreviousContinue »
authority to be genuine, paid to her the of his employment. In Story on Agency, deposit and interest in eight bank notes s. 115, it is said, “If the cashier should of 1001. each and other notes. Among the pay to a bona fide holder a forged cheque notes of 1001. was one, No. 72,799, dated drawn upon the bank, the payment could the 19th of November, 1867.
not be recalled, but would be obligatory, On the 1st of July, 1868, the wife of for it is within the duty of the cashier to Henry Allen left him and his house, and answer drafts drawn on the bank; and the she and the prisoner were shortly after- bank intrusts him with an implied authowards found on board a steamboat at rity to decide upon the genuineness of the Queenstown on its way from Liverpool handwriting of the cheque when presented to New York, passing as Mr. and Mrs. for payment.” This position is founded on Prince, Mrs. Allen then having in her pos- The Bank of the United States v. the Bank session nearly all the remainder of the of Georgia (1), and Levy v. the Bank of the notes obtained from the bank. The note for United States (2). 1001., No. 72,799, was proved to have been [BLACKBURN, J.—The cashier is, no paid away by the prisoner in payment for doubt, estopped from denying that he had some sheep in May, 1868, and he said he possession of the money as to third persons; had it from Mrs. Allen.
but the question here is rather upon the Upon this evidence, it was objected by relation subsisting between the cashier and the prisoner's counsel that the counts his employer.] alleging the property in Henry Allen must In Chambers v. Miller (3) the plaintiff fail, as the note had never been in his pos- presented a cheque at a bank which the session ; and that as to the other counts, cashier of the defendants (the bankers) the evidence did not shew any larceny of took, and gave the plaintiff in return the note from the bank by the wife, but notes and gold. Whilst the plaintiff was rather an obtaining by forgery or false pre- counting the notes, one of the bankers, tences by her, and that the receipt by the having discovered that the drawer of the prisoner from her was not a receipt of stolen cheque had no assets, demanded the money property. I held, however, that the forged back, and it was held that the transfer of order presented by the wife was, under the the money was complete, and that as circumstances, a mere mode of committing between the plaintiff and the bankers a larceny against the London and West- there was no mistake at all, the mistake minster Bank, and that the prisoner was being between the defendants and their liable to be convicted on the fourth customer; and it was never doubted count.
in that case but that the mistake of the The jury found the prisoner guilty on cashier in paying the money bound the that count, and I respited judgment, and banker. reserved for the consideration of the Court In The Queen v. Jackson (4) it was held the question whether the obtaining the note that a pawnbroker's servant had a general from the bank by Mrs. Allen, under the authority from his master to act in his circumstances stated, was a larceny by business, and to deliver up a pledge to the her; if not, the conviction must be re- pawner; and when the servant, on receiving versed.
a parcel from the pawner which he supposed Collins, for the prisoner. This conviction contained valuables he had just seen in on the above fourth count is bad, on the the pawner's possession in a similar parcel, ground that the cashier of the bank had a handed over the pledges, the receipt of the general authority to part with the money pledges by the pawner was considered not of the bank, and did so part with it in this to be larceny. The Queen v. Adams (5) case to Mrs. Allen; and that being so, there was no larceny; and therefore the prisoner (1) 10 Wheat. Rep. 332. could not be guilty of receiving such money (2) 1 Bain Rep. 27. knowing it to be stolen, when, in fact, it
(3) 13 Com. B. Rep. N.S. 105; 8. c. 32 Law J. was not stolen at all. The cashier had autho- Rep. (N.s.) C.P. 30. rity to part with the money, inasmuch as (4) 1 R. & M. 119. the payment fell within the ordinary scope (5) 1 Den. C.C. 38.
NEW SERIES, 38.-Mag. Cas.
shews that where the property and posses- payment. In The Queen v. Essex (9) a sion is parted with, though in consequence conviction for larceny was quashed, where of a forged order, and in the belief that the the prisoner had by a false representation order was genuine, there is no larceny. To received as pretended agent for a depositor the same effect is Atkinson's case (6). In a cheque for the amount of the deposit The King v. Parks (7) a conviction for from the manager of a savings-bank, in the larceny of goods was held wrong, where consequence of a statement that the dethe shopman had been sent by the owner positor had given notice of withdrawal, and of the goods to the prisoner, who obtained that was on the ground that the manager the goods by giving two bills which proved parted with the possession and property in to be worthless, although the jury found the cheque, which he could only have that the owner of the goods never intended done by virtue of a general authority as to give the prisoner credit; and this was manager. decided on the ground that the owner of Poland (Douglas with him), for the the goods had parted with the property in
Crown.—The cashier had no power to part them as well as the possession through the with the property in the money of the bank act of the shopman. So it is contended here, to Mrs. Allen under the circumstances of that the cashier of the bank had a general this case, and therefore she was guilty authority to exercise his judgment on the of a larceny of the money from the bank, genuineness of notes or orders presented to and the prisoner was rightly convicted of him, and to pay them if he believed them receiving it knowing it to have been stolen. to be genuine.
The Queen v. Adams (5) has no application, [BLACKBURN, J.-I do not think that
as there it was the owner himself who parted the passage and cases from Story go quite with the goods, and the same observation
It seems there impliedly stated applies to Atkinson's case (6). In The Queen that the duty of the cashier was to know V. Jackson (4) the question was taken to be the notes of the bank, and does not go so whether the owner intended to part with far as to say that he must know a customer's
the property. c.J.
The cashier is the The Queen v. Jackson (4) seems to meet only person who has to deal with the that observation, for there it was held money.] that the assistant had a general authority The King v. Longstreeth (10) is directly to part with the pledges, and therefore he opposed to The Queen v. Jackson (4). There would have to exercise his judgment upon it was held that a carrier's servant had no the value of the pledges given in exchange. authority to part with a parcel but to the In The Queen v. Barnes (8) a conviction right person; and therefore the obtaining for larceny of money was quashed, where a parcel from the porter by falsely pretendthe prisoner had obtained the nioney from ing to be the person to whom it was the chief clerk of the prosecutors by pro- directed, was larceny. ducing a ticket to the effect that a sum of [BLACKBURN, J.-There it seems that money had been paid by the prisoner for the porter had no authority to deal with kitchen-stuff, the instructions of the clerk the property at all: he had only to do being to pay the prisoner the amount which with the possession.] should appear on the face of the ticket to But there can be no distinction behave been paid. And this was
tween a person and a document, and ground that the clerk delivered the money according to the present argument he must to the prisoner with the intent of parting have had as much authority to determine with it wholly to him; yet it could not whether the person who applied for it have been contended that the prosecutors was the right person to deliver it to, as ever directly and specifically authorized the the cashier to judge of the genuineness of
the order. (6) 2 East, P.C. 673. (7) Ibid. 671.
(9) Dearr. & R. 371; 8. c. 27 Law J. Rep. (N.8. (8) 2 Den. C.C. 59; 8. c. 20 Law J. Rep. (p.s.) M.C. 20. M.C. 34.
(10) 1 R. & M. C.C. 137.
[LUSH, J.—But the absolute ownership the servant had a limited or specific authorthere was not even in the carrier, but in the ity as to his power to dispose of them. In owners of the goods. BLACKBURN, J.-The the present case I think that the cashier of porter had no discretion to judge who the bank was acting within the scope of the the consignee was, but only a specific direc- authority conferred upon him by the nature tion to give it to that one person.]
of his employment, and he intended to part In The King v. Wilkins (11) the obtain- with the property in the money when he ing a parcel of goods from a batter's paid Mrs. Allen. apprentice, to whom they were delivered CHANNELL, B.-I ain of the same opinfor the purpose of being taken to a certain ion. The cases cited by Mr. Collins seem customer who had purchased them, by inter- to me distinguishable from the cases cited cepting the apprentice and falsely pretend- by Mr. Poland, by reason of the nature of ing to be the customer intended, was held the authority conferred upon the servants to be felony, as there was a taking from the or agents in them respectively. In this case, possession of the master.
if the cheque had been genuine the cashier [BLACKBURN, J.-In that case the ap- would have carried out his authority in prentice clearly had no authority to part paying it. Then having a general authority, with the possession when and as he did.] if he make a payment by mistake the pro
In The King v. Small (12), a cheese- perty in the money is not taken away by monger's shop-boy was held only to have reason of such mistake. the limited authority to part with goods on BYLES, J. concurred. being paid for them, and the prisoner was BLACKBURN, J.-I lament the state of the found guilty of larceny for obtaining goods law on this subject. The cases deciding that from the boy by giving him bad money in the property must be taken against the conpayment. The Queen v. Stewart (13) is to sent of the owner were decided when larceny the same effect, excepting that there the was a capital offence; but this was afterservant was induced to part with the goods wards qualified where the servant or agent by receiving a valueless cheque in pay- had possession of the goods and they were ment.
taken against the consent of the servant; [BLACKBURN, J.-But in that case the but this again was confined to such serservant bad no authority to part with the vants as had a general authority to part goods on receiving a cheque at all; his with the goods. There is a distinction authority was limited to taking cash or an between this case, and one where the equivalent.)
authority is limited to parting with the
possession only, as distinguished from BOVILL, C.J.--This conviction cannot be the property. The difficulty in these cases sustained. The distinction between larceny is to decide within which class of cases any and the obtaining goods, &c. by false pre- particular case comes. I think that the tences is a material one, inasmuch as one is carrier's porter in The King v. Longstreeth a felony and the other a misdemeanour. One (10) had no authority to deal with the proof the elements of larceny is that the goods perty at all, and it is to be observed that should be taken out of the possession and the same Judges decided that case as deciagainst the will of the owner. The cases ded The Queen v. Jackson (4), to which cited by Mr. Collins seem to me to shew case it was said to be opposed. There, I that property obtained from the owner, or think, there was a general authority in the from his servant, having a general author- pawnbroker's assistant to part with the ity to deal with it, though by false pretences, pledges, and the other cases came within is not larceny. The cases cited by Mr. the same principle. The cashier of a bank Poland, for the purpose of establishing the has a discretion to see whether a cheque is contrary proposition, were those in which genuine, and he has, no doubt, an authority
to pay money in respect of a genuine (11) 1 Leach, 586.
cheque, but he has with it a general author(12) 8 Car. & P. 46.
ity to part with the money as regards third (13) 1 Cox, C.C. 174.
LUSH, J.-I think the cashier acted with- the river, about 90 miles from the open sea. in the scope of his authority, and that his The vessel had proceeded about half way act in paying the money was the act of up the river, and was at the time of the the master, his employer.
offence about 300 yards from the nearest Conviction quashed. shore; the river at that place being about
half a mile wide. The tide flows up to the Attorneys–C. & J. Allen, for the prosecution; E. place and beyond it. No evidence was given Froggatt, for the prisoner.
whether the place was or was not within the limits of the port of Bordeaux. It was
objected, for the prisoner, that the offence (CROWN CASES RESERVED.] having been committed within the empire 1868.
of France, the vessel being a colonial vessel THE QUEEN V. ANDERSON. Nov. 16.
and the prisoner an American citizen, the
Court had no jurisdiction to try him. I Admiralty Jurisdiction - Manslaughter
expressed an opinion unfavourable to the on the High Seas–Central Criminal Court
objection, but agreed to grant a case for - Foreigner-River within Foreign Terri
the opinion of the Court for Crown Cases tory.
Reserved. The prisoner was convicted of The criminal jurisdiction of the Admi- manslaughter. ralty of England extends over British ships, M. Williams, for the prisoner. - It is not only on the high seas but also in rivers, submitted that the tribunal of the munibelow the bridges, where the tide ebbs and cipality of France, within whose jurisdiction flows, and where great ships go, though at the offence was committed, was the only a spot where the municipal authorities of tribunal by which the prisoner could have a foreign country might exercise concurrent been tried, and that the Central Criminal jurisdiction, if invoked.
Court had no jurisdiction, under the 4 & 5 A foreigner was convicted of manslaughter Will
. 4. c. 36. s. 22. (1), to try the prisoner at the Central Criminal Court, committed for this offence. The question seems to turn on board a British vessel, in the river on the construction to be put upon the Garonne, within the boundaries of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 French Empire, about 35 miles from the sea, Vict. c. 104. s. 267), which enacts that and at a spot about 300 yards from the “all offences against property and person nearest shore, within the flow and ebb of committed in or at any place either ashore or the tide ; and the conviction was held right, afloat out of Her Majesty's dominions by any inasmuch as it was a place within the juris- master, seaman, or apprentice who at the diction of the Admiralty of England, which time when the offence is committed is or that Court had jurisdiction to try under within three months previously has been 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 36. s. 22.
(1) “And whereas it is expedient that persons The following CASE was reserved by charged with certain offences committed on the Byles, J., sitting at the Central Criminal high seas and other places within the jurisdiction Court, at the last October Sessions.
of the Admiralty of England, should speedily be James Anderson, an American citizen, brought to trial; be it therefore enacted, by and was indicted for murder on board vessel with the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may belonging to the port of Yarmouth, in Nova be lawful for the Justices and Judges of Oyer and Scotia. She was registered in London, and Terminer and Gaol Delivery to be named in and was sailing under the British flag. At the appointed by the commissions to be issued under time of the offence committed, the vessel the authority of this act, or any two or more of was in the river Garonne, within the boun- them, to inquire of, hear, and determine any offence daries of the French Empire, on her way up or offences committed or alleged to have been comto Bordeaux, which city is, by the course of mitted on the high seas, and other places within
the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, and Bovill, C.J., Byles, J., Blackburn, J., Chan. to deliver the gaol of Newgate of any person or nell, B., and Lush, J.
persons committed to or detained therein for any employed in any British ship shall be deemed port or harbour, or if any person, not being to be offences of the same nature respec- a British subject charged with having comtively, and be liable to the same punish- mitted any crime or offence on board any ments respectively, and be inquired of, British ship on the high seas is found within heard, tried, determined, and adjudged in the jurisdiction of any Court of justice in the same manner and by the same Courts Her Majesty's dominions, which would have and in the same places as if such offences had cognizance of such crime or offence if had been committed within the jurisdiction committed within the limits of its ordinary of the Admiralty of England." The seaman jurisdiction, such Court shall have jurisdicmentioned in that section must be confined tion to hear and try the case as if such crime to a British seaman. Sir G. C. Lewis, on or offence had been committed within such Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 24, commenting limits.” A ship bearing the British flag is a on the above 267th section, says, “It seems quasi part of the dominions or territory. that under this provision a theft, or even Then, does any one coming within it owe a common assault, committed by a British temporary allegiance? seaman upon a native in a foreign port, [Bovill, C.J.-M. Ortolan, in his treatise might be the subject of an indictment in upon Les Règles Internationales et DiploEngland," but he adds, “It is possible, matie de la Mer, tom. 1. cap. xiii. p. 270, however, that the very extensive terms of 4th ed. 1864, is a strong authority against this enactment might receive some limita- you. M. Ortolan says, "M. Wheaton, dans tion from judicial interpretation."
son Traité de Droit International, d'accord [BLACKBURN, J.-The meaning of the en cela avec d'autres écrivains, formule le section may be, that a foreign seaman serv- principe général que ‘Les bâtiments maring on board a British ship would be a chands d'un état quelconque entrés dans les British seaman. CHANNELL, B.-I under- ports d'un autre état, ne sont pas exempts de stand Sir G. Lewis in the above passage la juridiction locale, à moins d'une convento be rather commenting on the meaning of tion expresse; et qu'ils le sont seulement en the words “property” and “persons” in ce que a été prévu par une telle convention.' the section. BLACKBURN, J.- In this view Suivant la doctrine Française, cette proposiof the matter I think the question is, whe- tion est très absolue et susceptible de quelques ther a foreigner employed on board a British restrictions. Voici comment, en France, à ship owes a temporary allegiance to the défaut de convention spéciale, est entendue British Queen, so as to become a British et pratiquée la règle de droit international seaman within the meaning of the Mer- sur cette matière. Notre législation établit, chant Shipping Act.]
quant aux faits que se passent à bord des The 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91. . 21. pro- navires de commerce dans un port ou dans vides, that “if any person, being a Brit- une rade en pays étranger, une distinction ish subject charged with having committed entre: 1°, d'une part les actes de pure disany crime or offence on board any British cipline intérieure du navire : ou même les ship on the high seas, or in any foreign crimes ou délits communs commis par un
homme de l'équipage contre un autre offence or offences alleged to have been done and homme du même équipage lorsque la trancommitted opon the high seas aforesaid within the quillité du port n'en est pas compromise ; jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England; and all et 2°, d'autre part, les crimes ou délits comindictments found and trials and other proceedings
mis même à bord contre des personnes had and taken by and before the said Justices and étrangères à l'équipage ou par tout autre Judges of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery que par un homme de l'équipage; ou même sball be valid and effectual to all intents and pur. ceux commis par les gens de l'équipage poses whatsoever; and that it shall and may be entre eux, si la tranquillité du port en est lawful for any three of the said Justices and Judges compromise. A l'égard des faits de la preof Oyer and Terminer and Gaol Delivery to order mière classe notre législation déclare que les and direct the payment of the costs and expenses droits de la puissance à laquelle appartient of such prosecutions in manner prescribed and le navire doivent être respectés; que l'audirected by the before recited act, 7 Geo. 4.” torité locale, par conséquent, ne doit pas,