Majority
p. 226The People vs. John Sheahan.
Headnote
The “ Act to prevent ser vants embezzlmgtheirmas ters’ goods,” pTi^exlcnds to cases only vant'e oi-6 apprentice has the custody of the goods.Receiving stolen goods, knowing they were stolen.
John Sheahan was charged in an indictment for receiyjincr stolen goods, knowing they were stolen. He was ° ° . arraigned for this offence, and plead not guilty.
Griffin, an apprentice to Mr. Brown, Soap and Tallow Chandler, testified that he sold to the prisoner one box of tallow candles, the property of Isaac and David I. Brown-
p. 227called a / number of witnesses who testified that the prisoner was a man of good character. They also raised several points of law in his favor. Sampson read the “ act to prevent servants embezzling their masters’ goods, Rev. L. vol. 1. p. 413., wherein it is enacted, that servants embezzling their masters’ goods and chattels to a certain value, with intent tó steal them, are guilty of felony. But there is a proviso in the act ■which says. “ But this act shall not extend to any appren-
It appeared the prisoner had a cellar in the neighborhood of the Messrs. Brown’s factory, in which he sold oranges, &c., that Griffin had often stopped into the store in the morning, as he was going to the factory, that the prisoner had told him several times to bring him a box-candles. He finally brought him the box of candles charged in the indictment, for which he was to receive 4d per lb., but had never asked for, or received any thing.'
In consequence of information received at the Police Office, a search-warrant was issued, and the premises of the prisoner searched. A great variety of articles were found, and among others, the box of candles, secreted under the bed. Upon inquiring of the prisoner how and when they came there, he said he had purchased them of Mr. Brown. The officer went to the factory, and upon inquiring, was told that they had not sold him the box of candles, or any person from their store. Mr. Isaac Brown returned with the officer to the cellar occupied by Sheahan and upon examining thg candles, found they were his prop-; erty. Gi;iffin denied he had brought them there, but in a short time confessed he had, and that they were brought by the direction of the prisoner ; and Sheahan finally confessed he had received them from the boy.
Sampson and D. Graham, for the prisoner,
p. 228" tice, nor to any person within the age of eighteen years, ti g0;ng away with the monies, goods, chattels, or bills of “ exchange, bonds, orders, warrants, bills or promissory “ notes for payment of money, or any public securities is- or to be issued by authority of the United States, “ or of this State, for payment of money, of his or her mas“ter or mistress, or otherwise converting the same to his “ or her own use during the time of his or her apprentice- “ ship, or being within the age of eighteen years.” Sampson contended, that'under the above statute, the offence committed by Griffin was not a felony. It was merely a breach'of trust; for the act would be nugatory if apprentices could be prosecuted for a felony when the act was explicit—when there was an express proviso that it should not extend to apprentices under eighteen years of age. He argued, that as this was not a felony in Griffin, but a mere fraud—a breach of trust—as they were not stolen by him, they could not be received by Sheahan, knowing they were stolen—if there was no larceny of the goods, it would be impossible they could be received, knowing they were stolen. He contended that this act was in favor of apprentices. Maxwell replied that the act extended to cases only where the apprentice had charge of the goods, in the language of the acl, “ That if any servant, to whom any mon- “ ey, goods, chattels, or bills of exchange, bonds, orders, “ warrants, bills or promissory notes for payment of money, “ or any public securities issued or to be issued by authori- “ ty of the United States, or of this State, for payment of “ money, heretofore have been, or hereafter shall be, by his “ or her paaster or mistress, delivered to be safely kept,” &c. He contended that the act extended to cases where the
p. 229.goods had been delivered to be safely kept, and not to cases where the original taking was wrongful, that such a construction was not only within the spirit of the act, but was also within the express letter of the law, that a contrary construction would be full of the most consequences to society; it would let loose one part of the community to prey upon the property of another : that the act should be construed strictly, not only for the security of the master, but also for the benefit of the apprentice.
The Court intimated that they took the law to be as stated by the District Attorney; but observed the prisoner should have the benefit of the objection raised by his counsel in arrest of judgment, or on a motion for a new trial.
The trial proceeded, and D. Graham raised another objection;
He contended, that in petit larceny, all were principals —there could be no accessaries either before or after the fact; and that the defendant therefore could not be convicted as a receiver: that the evidence before the was, that the defendant counselled the boy to take the box of candles ; in accordance with his counsel and direction, he did bring it. It was a petit larceny in both, and the defendant is guilty as principal, and not as receiver.
In petit larce"y. alJ are principals. To counsel °f candles of he does steal ^he?’ ” t£eI°"
The jury was directed to pass upon the prisoner upon the evidence before them; the objection being saved to be considered by the Court.
The jury immediately delivered in a verdict of guilty, against the defendant.
The Court subsequently decided the objection good.