§ 27. Action or suit to be commenced within six months after 54 G. 5. c. 159. offence. 28. Act not to affect rights of property, privileges, juris dictions, and powers of conservancy. rivers. By the stat. 24 Geo. 2. c. 45. All and every person and per- 24 G. 2. c. 45. sons who shall feloniously steal any goods, wares, or merchandise Stealing goods of the value of 40s. in any ship, barge, lighter, boat, or other on navigable vessel, or craft upon any navigable river, or in any port of entry Vide Vol. II. or discharge, or in any creek belonging to such river or port, or upon any wharf or key adjacent to such river or port, or who shall be present and aiding, shall be excluded from the benefit of clergy. Upon this statute the construction is generally confined to such goods and merchandises as are usually lodged in ships, or on wharfs or quays. title Larceny, p. 224. Therefore where George Grimes was indicted on this statute R. v. Grimes, for stealing a considerable sum of money out of a ship in port; Maidstone Lent though great part of it consisted of Portugal money, not made Ass. 1752. current by proclamation, but commonly current; it was ruled not to be within the statute. Fost. 79. 647. Thames not At the O. B. May 1784, one Pike was tried before Adair Pike's case, Serjt. Recorder, on this statute, for stealing a quantity of deals O.B. 1784. "in a certain barge on the navigable river Thames." It appeared 1 Leach. 317. in evidence, that as the barge with the deals, belonging to the East's P. C. prosecutor, was navigating down the Thames, the lighterman, Indictment for fearful of an accident, brought it into Limehouse Dock, where it stealing deals in was moored. By the efflux of the tide it was left a-ground, and a barge on the in the night the boat and the deals above the value of 40s. were stolen. The Court held, that the offence laid was not proved proved by shewing that the within the meaning of the statute: that in the construction of barge was statutes that take away the benefit of clergy, the law required a-ground in a that the fact laid in the indictment should be strictly proved; but dock in a creek in the present case, the evidence proved that the larceny was not of the river; to committed 66 on the navigable river Thames," but upon the banks of one of its creeks: that it was true, the statute also took away the benefit of clergy from any person who should steal to the amount of 40s. " in any port of entry or discharge, or in any creek belonging to any navigable river, port of entry or discharge;" but this being a different branch of the act, the indictment should have charged the fact accordingly. The prisoner, therefore, was convicted only of the simple larceny. which another the statute apdescription in plies. Abrahat's case, 2 Leach, 824. East's P. C. 2 647. chased corn on 4. having purboard a vessel in At Surry Spring Ass. 1798, Nicholas Abrahat was tried before Buller J. on stat. 24 Geo. 2. c. 45. for stealing five quarters of oats from a vessel on the navigable river Thames, the property of J. B., &c. The prosecutors were corn-factors, and the prisoner was their servant, and had been employed by them many years, in superintending the unloading of corn vessels. The prosecutors having purchased 240 quarters of oats, on board a Dutch vessel the Thames, lying on the Surry side of the Thames, of which the five quarters sent his barge in question were part; while the corn-meters were in the act of to receive it in unloading the oats from the Dutch vessel into the prosecutor's servant, embarge, the prisoner with another person came alongside in a boat, ployed by him and handed ten empty sacks on board the Dutch vessel, desiring to superintend that the sacks might be filled with oats and tied, saying, they the delivery, were going to be put into an up-country lug-boat. He also separates part bulk. His from the rest ing it away im while on board desired that the account of the oats put into the sacks might be the vessel, and carried to the score, and not a separate account made of them. embezzles that The rest of the oats were loaded in loose bulk into the prosepart by convey- cutor's barge. After the sacks were filled, the prisoner sent them mediately by an- away to another place, where he sold them. The prisoner had other boat; held never been employed by the prosecutors to sell corn for them, nor larceny on was he authorised so to do. The jury found the prisoner guilty; but the learned Judge saved the case for the opinion of the Judges; and at the ensuing Summer Assizes, the prisoner received judgment of death; the Judges being of opinion that the conviction was right. stat. 24 G. 2. c. 45. for steal ing from a vessel on the Thames. robbery. $ I. What it is. Robbery. II. Assaulting with Intent to rob. [24 H. 8. c. 5.-7 G. 2. c. 21.] III. Levying Hue and Cry on a Robbery committed. IV. Hundred when liable to answer Damages. [13 Ed. 1. st. 2. c. 2.—28 Ed. 3. c. 11.-27 Eliz. c. 13. -29 C. 2. c. 7.-8 G. 2. c. 16.-22 G. 2. c. 24.] V. Manner of bringing the Action against the Hundred. [27 Eliz. c. 13.—8 G. 2. c. 16.] VI. Damages how to be levied and applied. [27 Eliz. c. 13.8 G. 2. c. 16.—22 G. 2. c. 46] VII. Pardon for discovering an Accomplice. VIII. Principal and Accessary in Robbery. IX. Punishment of Robbery. [22 G. 3. c. 33.] X. What shall be done with the Goods of which a Person is robbed. 1. What it is. Two kinds of THERE are two kinds of robbery; from the person, and from the house: It is the former of these that is treated of under this title; the latter, viz. robbery from the house, belongeth to the titles Larceny and Burglary. Derivation of the word robbery. Robbery, Ld. Coke says, is derived from the French de la robe, both because they bereave the true man of his robes, and also for that his money is taken by them from some part of his garment, or robes about his person. But in truth, the word seemeth to be much more ancient than the introduction of the French into our language; and probably was deduced to us through the channel of Saxony or Denmark. Robber, in the Saxon is reofere; in the Low Dutch, roover; in the Danish, roffure: by a transmutation of the letters b, f, and v, frequent in all kindred languages. The Gothic translation of the gospels useth biraubodedun to signify the robbed, from birauban, to rob; which being stripped of the prefix augmentative is rauban. The Saxons expressed the same by bereafodon, which we still preserve when we say they bereaved; and in the northern parts of England, the words robbing and reaving are still used promiscuously to signify rapine and plunder; and when the violent winds do strip a house of its thatch or covering, it is called reoving. Robbery is a felonious taking of money or goods, to any value, Definition of from the person of another, or in his presence, against his will, by robbery. violence, or putting him in fear. Felonious.] For to make it robbery, there must be a felonious intention; and so it ought to be laid in the indictment. Taking.] The taking must be against the will of the owner, and to constitute the crime of robbery, the property must be taken from the person either by violence or by putting him in fear; either of these circumstances is sufficient. But no sudden taking of a thing unawares from the person, as by snatching any thing from the head or hand, is sufficient, unless some injury be done to the person, or unless there be some previous struggle for the possession of the thing taken. Violence.] Thus, where the prisoner, while a lady was stepping into her carriage, snatched at her diamond ear-ring, and separated it from her ear by tearing the ear entirely through; but there was no proof of the ear-ring ever having been seen in his hand, and, upon the lady's arrival at home, it was found amongst the curls of her hair; the Judges, on a case reserved, were all of opinion, that there was a sufficient taking from the person to constitute robbery. They thought that it was sufficient, as the ear-ring was in the possession of the prisoner separate from the lady's person, though but for a moment, and though he could not retain it, but probably lost it again the same instant. 2 East's P. C. 707. 1 Hale, 532. Lapier's case O. B. May, 1784. 1 Leach, 320. 2 East's P. C. So in the case of Rex v. Davies alias Beard, who was indicted Davies's case, for taking a gentleman's sword from his side clam et secretè, it was O. B. 11 An. holden to be a robbery, because the gentleman observing that the prisoner had laid hold of his sword, laid hold of it himself at the same time, and struggled for it. 709. others, Against the will.] In the case of Macdaniel, Berry, Eagan, and Case of Salmon, it appeared that all the prisoners and one Thomas Blee, in M Daniel and order to obtain to themselves the rewards (a) given by act of par- Fost. 121. liament for apprehending robbers, agreed that Blee should pro- 19 Howell's St. cure two persons to commit a robbery on the prisoner Salmon; Tri. 746. and that in pursuance of this agreement, and with the privity of all the prisoners, Blee procured Ellis and Kelly, two strangers, to go with him to Deptford in order to steal linen, but did not inform them of the intended robbery; that they went with Blee to Deptford, and the prisoner Salmon being waiting there in pursuance of the agreement, they robbed him of the money and goods mentioned in the indictment. This case was argued before all the Judges; who (a) Now abolished by stat. 58 G. 3. c. 70. ~ See. Vol. II. p. 373.. The putting in fear need not be strictly proved. were unanimously of opinion that, as the goods were taken from Salmon in pursuance of the agreement before mentioned, in lega! construction he was not robbed at all, since it is of the essence of robbery, that the goods be taken against the will of the owner; although the circumstance of putting in fear is perhaps not necessary to be inserted in the indictment, at least it need not to be strictly proved, for if a man be knocked down without any previous warning, and thereby rendered insensible, or if he manfully resist and be overpowered without being under any fear at all, it is not the less robbery upon that account. And the prisoners were discharged of this indictment. But afterwards an indictment was found against them, and prosecuted at the expense of the crown on the representation of the judges for a conspiracy; in which the principal facts found by the special verdict in the robbery bill were charged. On this indictment they were all convicted; and the Court gave judgment, that they be all set in and upon the pillory twice; that they stand committed for seven years, and until they find sureties for their good behaviour for three See 19 Howell's years afterwards. One of them (Eagan) lost his life in the pillory, through the resentment of the populace. And on that account, the others did not stand a second time. But they were all in Newgate very closely confined in pursuance of their sentence. St. Tri. 814. 2 East's P. C. 711 2 East's P. C. 555. 1 Haw. c. 34. $6. R. v. Black 1787. 2 East's P. C. 711. Putting him in fear.] Robbery may also be constituted by putting in fear as well as by force; or perhaps in strictness it may be said that fear will supply the place of force. A colourable gift, which in truth was extorted by fear, amounts to a taking and trespass in law. As if a person with a drawn sword, or other circumstances of terror indicating a felonious intent, beg alms of another, who gives it him through mistrust and apprehension of violence, the offence is the same notwithstanding the pretence. So it is whether there were any weapon drawn or not; or whether it were an offensive weapon: or whether the person assaulted delivered his money upon the other's command, or afterwards gave it him upon his ceasing to use force, and asking it for alms; for the owner was put in fear by the assault, and there remained a reasonable ground for its continuance. The same rule holds, although the thing taken were not really within the original contemplation of the robber, nor the object of his pursuit at the time. Blackham assaulted a woman within intent to commit a rape, ham, Tri. Term. and she without any demand from him offered him money, which the prisoner took and put into his pocket, but continued to treat her with violence to effect his original purpose, till he was interrupted by the approach of another person. This was holden to be robbery by a considerable majority of the judges: for the woman, from violence and terror occasioned by the prisoner's behaviour, and to redeem her chastity, offered the money, which it was clear she would not have given voluntarily; and the prisoner, by taking it, derived that advantage to himself from his felonious conduct; though his original intent was to commit a rape. Taking money to desist from a rape. Taplin's case, O. B. June, 1780, cor. Nares J. 2 East's P. C. 712. During the riots in London in the year 1780, a boy with a cockade in his hat knocked violently at the door of the prosecutor, Mahon, who thereupon opened it; and the boy said to him, "God bless your Honour, remember the poor mob." Mahon told him to go along, on which he said, "Then I will go and fetch my captain." He went; and the mob, to the amount of 100, armed with sticks and whatever they could get, soon after came, headed by the prisoner, Thomas Taplin, on horseback, having his horse led by the same boy. On their coming up, the bye-standers said, You must give them money; and the boy said, "Now I have brought my captain." Mahon then asked the prisoner, "How much?" who answered, Half-a-crown, Sir." On which Mahon, who had before only intended to give a shilling, gave the prisoner the half-a-crown. This was holden to be a robbery. Nares J. 2 East's P.C. 731. Another case of the like sort occurred upon the trial of Brown's case, some of the rioters in the year 1780. The indictment was for O. B. June, robbing the prosecutor Daking in his dwelling-house; into which 1780, cor. Daking swore that the prisoner William Brown and another man entered; and being asked by him what they wanted, Brown having a drawn sword in his hand, said with an oath, "Put one shilling into my hat, or I have a party that can destroy your house presently:" on which the prosecutor gave him a shilling. Another witness present swore, that the prisoner also used the expression, that "if he (Daking) would keep the blood within his mouth, he must give the shilling." The offence was holden to be robbery. Ass. 1783, 2 East's P. C. 712. York Sum. Ass. 1783, cor. Buller J. 2 East's P. C. 712. In Simons's case, it appeared that the prisoners took a bushel R. v. Simons, and an half of wheat worth 8s., and obliged the owner to take Cornwall Lent 13 d. for it, threatening to kill her if she refused; this was holden to be a robbery by all the judges on a conference. So in Spencer's case, the prosecutor Anderton having in his Spencer's case, possession corn belonging to other persons, the prisoner came to him together with a mob marching in military order; and one of the mob said, that if he would not sell they would take it away the prisoner said, that they would give 30s. a load, and if he would not take that, they would take the corn away, on which the prosecutor sold that for 30s. which was worth 38s.: this was holden to be robbery; and the prisoner was convicted and executed. Fear.] The cases of robbery in which the property has been obtain- 2 Russ. 1009. ed by means of a fear being excited of injury to the character of the party robbed, appear to be confined to insinuations against, or threats to destroy the character of the party pillaged, by accusing him of sodomitical practices. The fears unavoidably excited by these means have, on several occasions, been determined by the judges to be sufficient to constitute the crime of robbery. The bare idea of being thought addicted to so odious and detestable a crime, is, of itself, sufficient to deprive the injured person of all the comforts and advantages of society; a punishment more terrible, both in apprehension and reality, than even death itself. The law, therefore, considers the fear of losing character by such an imput. ation as equal to the fear of losing life itself, or of sustaining personal injury. Per Ashhurst J. in delivering the opinion of the judges in Rex v. James Knewland and Nathaniel Wood, O. B. February Sess. 1796. 2 Leach. 730. alias Evans, O.B. Feb. 1776. Thomas Jones alias Evans, who was convicted at the O. B. R. v. Jones June Sess. 1776, of a robbery, in extorting money by threatening to charge the prosecutor with an unnatural crime; the prosecutor swearing that, he was so alarmed by the idea, that he had neither courage nor strength to call out for assistance; and 2 East's P.C. F 4 cor. Hotham B. 1 Leach, 139. 714. |