The Queen v William Privett and Charles Goodhall
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1846 |
| Date | 01 January 1846 |
| Court | Crown Court |
English Reports Citation: 169 E.R. 207
Crown Cases
S C. 2 Car. & Kir. 114, 6 L T O. S 456. Referred to, R. v. Wynn, 1848, post, p 365.
1846. the queen v. william privett and charles goodhall. (Prisoners charged with stealing their master's oats Proved that they took them wrongfully to give to their master's horses, without any end of gain to themselves. Held, a larceny.) [S C. 2 Car. & Kir. 114 , 6 L T 0. S 456. Referred to, R. v. Wynn, 1848, post, p 365.] The prisoners were tried before Mr. Justice Erie, at the Spring Assizes for the county of Hants It was proved that the prisoners took from the floor of a barn, in the presence of the thrasher, five sacks of unwinnowed oats, and secreted them m a loft there, for the purpose of giving them to their master's horses, they being employed as carter 208 REGINA V. JOHN CHARLES YOUNG 1 dbf. 194. and carter's boy, but not being answerable at all for the condition or appearance of the horses. The jury found that they took the oats with intent to give them to their master's horses, and without any intent of applying them for their private benefit The learned Judge reserved the case for the opinion of the Judges on the point, whether the prisoners were guilty of larceny. R v. Moifitt and anothei, rubs & Ry 307 ; R. v Cabbaye, Russ & Ry. 292 (see Queen v. Elizabeth Jom't,, last case). Lord Denman C. J , Tituial C J , Parke B , Patteson J , Williams J , Coltnian J , Rolfe B , Wightman J., Cresswell J , Erie J , and Platt B , met to consider this case. (MS Parke B ) The greater part of the Judges present (exclusive of Erie J., and Platt B ) appeared to think that this was larceny, because the prisoners took the oats knowingly against the will of the owner, and without [194] colour of title or of authority, with intent, not to take temporary possession merely, and then abandon it (which would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v William Privett and Charles Goodall
...guilty of larceny, even though they are not answerable at all for the condition of the horses.) [Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 1 Den. 193.] Larceny.-The prisoners were indicted for stealing twenty bushels of oats, the property of James Eames, their master. It was proved that the ......