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 Wolverhampton,
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-fields, kept by Mr. Joseph
Newton, drinking a glass of rnm 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 previously
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 ikfias
man finding property which was lost applied it to
.n."e_
own use, having no knowledge or means of ascertaining
the loser, he was not guilty of felony ; but if_ he did so,N i
having reason to believe that the owner could be found,
then he was guilty of larceny. In this case therecfotuhlde
be no doubt about the defendant's knowledge o
owner of the property.
The chairman suggested that the original taking bad
not been felonious. the half sove-
Mr. Spooner contended that in taking
defendant had beenking
reign, to which he hail no right, the
guilty of feloniously taking.
Mr. Motteram replied that the money had been given,
not taken.
Mr. Spooner acknowraleldged that there was no 'ease in
which he thought bor a upon
point, but quoted seve
e. others the case of " th,s Kig
the question, and amongwbereinitwas held to be. larceny to take
the hands of a person having it for safe
v. Bramley,"
being answerable for it. In this case
property out of the
custody, the bailee
the bailee of the half sovereign,' and
Mrs. Newton was
was answerable to the person from whom she had re-
ceived it for the change. Ile also quoted the case of
Queen v. Riley,t" wherein the defendant was Feld
guilty of iareeny in having driven away by mistake an-
other persons lamb with his own sheep, and on disctwer-
jog the mistake selling it.
The Chairman said there bad been in that case e res-
passn the first in.tance, the defendant haling no right
to drive away the lamb.
Mr. Vaughan called attention to the case of 1' 'elle
Queen v. Vincent," reported in the Law Journal, `2,10,
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 iffrs.
Newton had never really parted with the property , and
that the prisoner had only a right to take up his ct ,ange,
and not a half-sovereign.
The Court, however, held that the charge o f felony
could net be maintained, and without hearing evtde. pee,
directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.