The Sun.
London, England, 1855-10-26 00:00:00

CURIOUS CASE.

At 'the Staffordshire quarter sessions a few days ago,
Thomas Jones, a master builder, of Wolverhaanpton,
was indicted for stealing a half-sovereign, at Wolver-
hampton.
Mr. Spooner appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Motteram for the defence.

The case (says the Staffordshire Advertiser) was one
which excited some interest, from its novelty. On the
6th instant the prisoner was sitting in the bar of the
Crown and Anchor, Horsley-fiehls, kept by Mr. Joseph
Newton, drinking a glass of rum and water, in payment
for which he had given Mrs. Newton a shilling ; and the
case for the prosecution was that Mrs. Newton gave
him in change three !penny pieces, and, in mistake for a
sixpence, a half sovereign, which she had just previous 4,
received from another customer, to whom she also in
mistake gave only change for sixpence. The prisoner,
on being taxed with having the half sovereign, replied
that what ho had he should keep. He was given into
the custody of the police, and a half sovereign was found
upon him, which, however,, he alleged was his own
property.
Mr. Spooner said the rule of the law was, that if a
man finding property which was lost applied it to his
own use, having no knowledge or means of ascertaining
the the loser, he was not guilty of felony ; but if he did so,
having reason to believe that the owner could be found,
then he was guilty of larceny. In this case thereocfotuhlde
be no doubt about the defendant's know, ed ge
owner of the property.
The chairman suggested that the original taking had
not been felonious. :Fe theod ao t
had h
half so
evert
e-
Mr. Spooner contended that i nthtaekdi
reign, to which he had no right,
guilty of feloniously taking.
I Mr. Motteram replied that the money had been given,
not taken.
Mr. Spooner acknowledged that there was no case in
upon
point, but quoted several which he thought bore
others the case of " the Ring
v. question, and among.oltwas held to be larceny to takeg
V. Brainley," wherein
property out of.tehreehands of a person having it for f
custody, the bailee being answerable for it. In this casesae
Mrs. Newton was the bailee of the half sovereign, and
was answerable to the person from whom she had re-
ceived it for the chang,e. He also quoted the case of
The Queen
v. Riley, wherein the defendant was held
guilty of larceny in having driven away by mistake an-
other person's lamb with his own sheep, and on discover-
ing the mistake selling it.
The Chairman said there had been in that case tres-
pass in the first instance, the defendant having no right
to drive away the lamb.
Mr. Vaughan called attention to the case of " The
Queen v. Vincent," reported in the Law Journal, 210,
where it was held that where an owner parts with pos-
session of property by mistake, he does not divest him-
self of his proprietary in it.
Mr. Spooner contended that in the present case Mrs.
Newton had never really parted with the property, and
that the prisoner had only a right to take up his change,
and not a half-sovereign.
The Court, however, held that the charge of felony
could act be maintained, and without hearing evidence,
directed the jary to return A verdict of not guilty.