The Queen v John Wiley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 408
Crown Cases
S. C T. & M 367; 4 New Sess Cas 363; 20 L J M C 4; 16 L T O S 514. 14 J. P. 770, 15 Jur 134; 4 Cox C C. 412 Distinguished, R v Smith, 1855, 6 Cox C C 554; R v. Payne, 1909, 3 Cr. App Rep 259 Dictum approved, R v Berger, 1915, 84 L J K B 541 Referred to, R v. Matthews, 1850, 4 Cox C C 214, R v Marston, 1918, 13 Cr App Rep 203
408 THE QUEEN V. JOHN WILEY 2 DEN 37. [37] 1850 the queen r john wiley (A. and B , two thieves, were seen to come at midnight out of a house belonging to C 'a father, under the following circumstances A carried a sack containing the stolen goods ; B accompanied him , C preceded them, carrying a lighted candle. All three go into an ad]oimng stable belonging to C , and then shut the door Policemen enter the stable and find the sack lying on the floor tied at the mouth, and the three men standing round it as if they were bargaining ; but no particular words were heard. Held, by eight Judges to four, that on thia evidence C could not be convicted of receiving stolen goods , inasmuch as although there was evidence of a criminal intent to receive and of a knowledge that the goods were stolen, yet the exclusive possession of them still remained in the thieves, and therefore C had no possession, either actual or constructive ) [S. C T. & M 367; 4 New Sess Gas 363; 20 L J M C 4; 16 L T O S 514, 14 J. P. 770 , 15 Jur 134 ; 4 Cox C C. 412 Distinguished, R v Smith, 1855, 6 Cox C C 554; R v. Payne, 1909, 3 Cr. App Rep 259 Dictum approved, R v Berqer, 1915, 84 L J K B 541 Referred to, R v. Matthews, 1850, 4 Cox C C 214, R v Woodward, 1862, Le & Ca 122 ; R v Watson, [1916] 2 K. B. 385 , R v Marston, 1918, 13 Cr App Rep 203 ] At the General Quarter Sessions for the county of Northumberland, holden at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on the 26th day of February, a d 1850, Bryan Straughan, George Williamson, and John Wiley, were jointly indicted under stat 7 & 8 Geo IV c. 29, s 54, for stealing and receiving five hens and two cocks, the property of Thomas Davidson. It was proved that, on the morning of the 28th day of January, in the same year, about half-past four, Straughan and Williamson were seen to go into the house of John Wiley's father with a loaded sack that was carried by Straughan John Wiley lived with his father in the said house, and was a higgler, attending markets with a horse and cart. Straughan and Williamson remained in the house about ten minutes, and then were seen to come out of the back door, preceded by John Wiley, with a candle, Straughan again carrying the sack on his shoulders, and to go into a stable belonging to the same house, situated in an enclosed yard at the back of the house, the house and stable being on the same premises The stable door was shut by one of them, and on the policemen going in they found the sack on the floor tied at the mouth, and the three men standing round it as if they were bargaining, but no words were heard The sack had a hole in it, [38] through which poultry feathers were protruding The bag, when opened, was found to contain six hens, two cocks, and nine live ducks. There were none of the inhabitants up in the house but John Wiley, and on being charged with receiving the poultry, knowing it to be stolen, " he said that he did not think he would have bought the hens ' The jury found Straughan and Williamson guilty of stealing the poultry laid in the indictment, and John Wiley guilty of receiving the same, knowing it to be stolen The Court told the jury that the taking of Straughan and Williamson with the stolen goods as above by Wiley into the stable, over which he had control, for the purpose of negotiating about the buying of them, he well knowing the goods to have been stolen, was a receiving of the goods by hmi within the meaning of the statute. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether the conviction of Wiley was proper The three prisoners were again jointly indicted for stealing and receiving the nine ducks which were found in the sack mentioned in the last case, and upon the same evidence and the same direction by the Court The jury again found Straughan and Williamson guilty of stealing, and John Wiley guilty of receiving the nine ducks, knowing them to have been stolen The question for the opinion of this Court was, whether this second conviction was proper 2 This case was argued on 27th April, A D. 1850, before Lord Campbell C J Parke B , Alderson B , Cresswell J , and Erie J Otter for the prisoners The first statute on the subject of receiving is 3 Win. & Mary, c 9, s 4, and that and all the subsequent statutes up to at at 22 Geo III [39] c. 58, make it felony to receive or buy. Stat 7 & 8 Geo [V c 29. s 54, makes it a 3 DBS. 40. THE QUEEN V. JOHN WILEY 409 felony in receive only; it is, therefore, no longer a felony to buy unless there is also a receiving. R v. Hill, 1 Den. C. C. 453, shews that there must be either an actual or a potential receiving. Here there was neither Parke B.-Yoa say that there must be a parting with the possession by the thief 2 Ottar. Yes ; i joint receiving with the thief will not do ; though a joint receiving with any one else will. The possession of the thief is inconsistent with that of the receiver. The question here is-can a person who takes a thief with stolen goods into a secret place for the purpose of negotiating about the purchase of them., knowing them to have been stolen, be thereby a receiver within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen v Cleve Ronald Kumnick [FLR]
...that the common law authorities on receiving were applicable to s229 of the Code. 16 Mr Tippett referred toR v Wiley (1850) 2 Den. 37; 169 ER 408 and R v Cavendish (1961) 2 All ER 856, and noted that in the present case the premises where the goods were received were the premises of Calaby ......
-
R v Benjamin Woodward
...thieves took some ducks into a stable, and were found there haggling with the proprietor about the price Brodrick. That is Wiley's case (2 Den C C 37) There it was held by eight Judges to four that a man could not be convicted of receiving stolen goods, if he had no possession of them, actu......