R v John Grove

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date28 September 1835
Date28 September 1835
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 1339

LINCOLN'S INN

Rex
and
John Grove

S. C. 7 C. & P. 635. Explained, R. v. Jones, 1838, 8 C. & P. 288 Not followed, R v. Chapman, 1843, 1 L. T. O S. 414. Considered, R. v. Moah, 1856, 7 Cox C. C. 60. Referred to, R. v. Robinson, 1840, 4 J. P. 620; R v. Wetch, 1846, 2 Cox C. C. 85; R v. Bond, 1849, 13 J. P 796; R. v. Wright, 1857, 7 Cox C C. 413

START 1 MOOD. 448. REX V. JOHN GROVE 1339 1835. rex v. john grove. (An indictment for embezzlement may be supported since 7 & 8 Geo IV. c. 29, s. 48, by proof of a general deficiency of monies that ought to be forthcoming without shewing any particular sum received, and not accounted for.) [S. C. 7 C. & P. 635. Explained, R. v. Jones, 1838, 8 C. & P. 288 Not followed, R v. Chapman, 1843, 1 L. T. 0 S. 414. Considered, R. v. Moak, 1856, 7 Cox C. C. 60. Referred to, R. v. Robinson, 1840, 4 J. P. 620 ; R v. Wekh, 1846, 2 Cox C. C. 85 ; R v. Bond, 1849, 13 J. P 796 ; R. v. Wright, 1858, 7 Cox C C. 413 ] The prisoner was tried before Mr. Justice Williams, at the Central Criminal Court, holden in September, 1835, upon an indictment charging him, 1st, That he, on the 28th August, being employed as a clerk to MaHterman and others, did receive money to a large amount, to wit, £500, ou account of his said masters, and feloniously did embezzle and steal the same, against the statute, &c. 2dly, The like, only for embezzling and stealing the sum of £10, on 29th August 3dly, Stealing, on 29th August, one bank note for payment of £10, one bank note for £5, 10 sovereigns, 10^ sovereigns, 10 crowns, 10i crowns, and 10| shillings, the property of tis said masters. 4thly, The like, only omitting to state that he was a clerk to Master man and others. The prisoner was, at the time of the transactions in question, and had been for some time before, cashier in the bank of Messrs Masterman and Co , bankers, London. His duty as cashier was to take charge of the cash, when any payment was made into the bank in money and paper ; and the course was for the cashier to hand over the paper to a clerk, and to enter the cash received in a book kept by him (the cashier), called the [448] money book. It was the duty of the cashier, at the close of the business of each day, to see that the cash in hand agreed with the money book, and to strike a balance, denoting the sum in cash which the cashier had in his charge, and which ought to have been kept either in the drawer in the counter, of which he had the key, or in a box in the banking-house, of which he had the key and the charge. On the 2'8th August, 1835, the cash in the money book at the close of business was £1762 and a fraction, which sum was by the prisoner carried forward, as in due course it ought to have been, and formed the first item of the account in the said book for the 29th. On the latter day, at the close of business, the prisoner, after crediting himself with money paid by him (it being pait of his duty to pay away as well as receive money), and debiting himself with cash received, made the balance in the " money book " £1309 and a fraction, and that sum the prisoner ought to have had in one or the other of the above mentioned places of deposit on the same day (29th August). Soon after the close of business, Mr. Oxley, one of the partners, sent for tbe prisoner, and after intimating his suspicions, required him to produce his money. Tiie prisoner thereupon said that he was short ; and being asked how much, replied about £900, and threw himself upon the mercy of his employers. Upon examination, it was found that the prisoner, instead of £1309 in his hands, had only £345 and a fraction, leaving the actual deficiency £964 and a fraction. Mr. Oxley, who proved the whole case, had no knowledge of the facts whatever, except what has been above stated, and could not say when the money, or any part of it, had been purloined, from what person or persons it had been received, what...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • R v William Gorbutt
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1857
    ...opinion of her Majesty's Judges, whether the prisoner has been duly convicted. The following cases were cited in argument. Reg. v. Gwve (7 Car & P 635) , Reg. v. Hall (Russ & Ry 463), Reg v. Chapman (1 Cox, C. C 47); Reg v Moah (Dears. C. C. 626) This case was considered on the 24th of Janu......
  • The Queen v William Murphy
    • Ireland
    • Court of Criminal Appeal
    • 15 February 1850
    ...Car. & Kir. 63. Rex v. HodgsonENR 3 C. & P. 422. Regina v. NormanENR Car. & M. 501. Rex v. MurrayENR 1 Mood. C. C. 276. Rex v. GroveENR 1 Mood. C. C. 447. The Queen v. WaiteENR 2 Cox, 245. Regina v. NorvalENR 1 Cox, 95. Rex v. WillisENR 1 Mood. 375. Regina v. WelchENR 1 Den. C. C. 199. Regi......
  • R v John Moah
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1856
    ...the amount of defalcation, and there is no evidence applicable to any particular sum, which is, I contend, necessary. In Rex v. Grove (1 Mood. C. C 447 ; S. C. 7 Car & P. 635) it appears to have been decided, by eight Judges to seven (a), that an indictment for embezzlement may be supported......
  • Tuck, Suzanne v R
    • Australia
    • Supreme Court of Tasmania
    • 8 December 1999
    ...embezzlement supported by proof of a general deficiency of moneys not accounted for without showing any particular sum received (R v Grove 7 C & P 635; see also R v Lambert 2 Cox CC 309). 25 Objection could be had to the form of indictment on the basis of prejudice in not knowing the specif......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT