R v Tollett and Taylor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Date | 01 January 1843 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 174 E.R. 432
IN THE COURTS OF QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS, AND EXCHEQUER.
[112] Oxford Assizes (Crown Side), before Mr. Justice Coleridge. regina v. tollett and taylor. (There is such a unity of interest between husband and wife that ordinarily the wife cannot steal the goods of the husband, nor can. an indifferent person steal the goods of the husband by the delivery of the wife ; and if the wife deliver the goods of the husband to an indifferent person, for that person to convert them to his own use, this is no larceny ; but if the person to whom the goods are delivered by the wife be an adulterer it is otherwise, and an adulterer can be properly convicted of stealing the husband's goods though they be delivered to him by the wife. If no adultery has actually been committed by the parties, (a) See the case of Reg. v. Wtlshaw, post, p 143 CA*. & M. 113. REGINA V. TOLLETT 433 but the goods of the husband are removed from his hoiiHe by the wife and the intended adulterer, with an intent that the wife should elope with him and live in adultery with him, this taking of the goods is, in point of law, a larceny. If a wife elope with an adulterer, who takes her clothes with them, it is a larceny ; and it is as much a larceny to steal her clothes, which are her husband's property, as it would be to steal anything else that was his property. If, ou the trial of a man for larceny, the jury are satisfied that he took any of the prosecutor's goods, there then being a criminal intention, or there having been a criminal act between the prisoner and the prosecutor's wife, the jury ought to convict, even though the goods were delivered to the prisoner by the piosecutor's wife , but if the jury should think that the prisoner took away the goods merely to get tho wife away from her husband as a friend only, and without any reference to any connexion between the prisoner and the wife, either actual or intended, they ought to acquit.) [Distinguished, R. v. Rosenberg, 1843, 2 L. T. (0. S ) 192 ] Larceny.-The prisoners were charged with stealing two watches, six handkerchiefs, eleven sovereigns, seventeen half-sovereigns, six crown pieces, and two boxes the property of Henry Eltham. It was opened by Keating, for the prosecution, that it had been arranged between the prisoner Taylor and the wife of the prosecutor, that they were to elope together on the Bight of Saturday the 31st of October, 1840 ; and that the prisoner Tollett ws to take them away to Gloucester in his cart, together with two boxes containing the property of the husband ; and that, about midnight on Saturday the 31st of October, the prisoner Taylor came to the prosecutor's house, when the wife delivered to him the boxes containing the property mentioned in the indictment, which he put into Tollett's cart ; but that the prosecutor's wife did not elope, because the prosecutor awoke and prevented her , however, instead of taking the pro-[113]-perty to Gloucester, the two prisoners went with it to Abingdon, where they were found with it on the morning of Monday, the 2nd of November. It was pioved by the prosecutor, that, on his going to bed, at about 10 o'clock on the night of the 31st of October, the boxes, which before that had contained hit, wife's clothes, his own silk handkerchiefs, the two watches, and about £4 in money, were safe in his bed-room, and that he went to sleep , and that about midnight he awoke and saw his wife was up and dressed, and that the boxes were gone In his cross-examination he said, that his wife and himself had been on bad terms, and that she had threatened to leave him and go to service. Mrs. Emily Eltham said, " I am the wife of the prosecutor ; I know both the prisoners. Before the 30th of October I had twice met the prisoner Taylor at Mrs. Hayward's in Oxford ; I do not know that it is a house of ill fame , we were in a bed-room together...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v James Rowton
...held that this was laiceny ; for, though the wife consented, it must be considered that it was done mmto domino." In Regina v Tollett (Car & M. 112) the law was carried a little farther by Coleridge J , who is reported to have said, " An adulterer can be properly convieted of stealing the h......
-
R v Rosenberg
...it was held, that the removal of goods in contemplation of adultery is the same thing This was the case of R v. Tolled t Taylor (Car. & Mar 112) But the present case differs from both those cases. But I should submit that, on principle, the possession of the wife was the possession of the h......