The Sun.
London, England, 1867-01-28 00:00:00

TIIIEVES, AND STOLEN GOODS.

This was a case of vast importance to marine-
store dealers in purchasing stolen property. The
decision of the Court upsets the course pursued by
the metropolitan magistrates for the last eighteen or
twenty years. The case came before the Court on
an appeal from quarter sessions confirming a
conviction by Mr. d'Eyncourt whereby the de-
fe;idaut was sentenced to two mouths' imprison-
ment with hard labour. The defendant
was charged with having in his possession, at his
shop in St. Pancras, 1721b5. of lead, which lead was
then and there reasonably suspected of having been
stolen, and the defendant not giving a satisfactory
account of how he came by the said property, the
magistrate convicted him of a misdemeanour. The
lead was stolen from an unoccupied house by several
lads, who took it in a barrow to the defendant's
shop, where he purchased it for 10s. On the same
evening the lads weir apprehended, and from what
they stated the police went to the defendant and
made inquiries, when he first denied and after-
wards admitted he had purchased it for 65., but
afterwards said 10s. Before the magistrate the de-
fendant's solicitor contended that as the lead had
been clearly stolen the defendant was not liable on
charge of unlawful possession of property supposed
to have been stolen, but that, if the defendant had
committed any offence, it was receiving goods
knowing them to have been stolen, for which he ought
to be committed, and tried by a jury. The magis-
trate, however, convicted under the 24th sec. of the
2d and 3d Vic., cap. 71, which conviction the jus-
tices on the appeal confirmed.
Mr. Metcalfe appeared as counsel in support of
the conviction ; Mr. Poland conducted the case for
the appellant.
Mr. Metcalfe said the conviction in this case took
place under the 2d and 3d Vic., cap. 71, sec. 24,
and the 2d and 3d Vic., cap. 47, sec. 66. It was
contended for the appellant that he had been ille-
gally convicted, " because he was not in possession
of goods reasonably supposed to have been
stolen," but of goods actually stolen, and there-
fore, if any offence had been committed, it was one
that should have been tried by a jury, and not one
for which he could be summarily convicted.
Other points had been raised, but the important
point to be argued was, whether a person charged
with having in his possession or conveying in any
manner, applied to the person who had stolen the
goods, or the person who was afterwards found to
be in possession of them. lie must admit that in
the decision in the case of Mr. Hadley, relating to
the sacks found in his mill, this Court held that pos-
session meant in the possession of the person con-
veying, and that the section of the
in 3actdiird not apply
in the case of the sacks found •
warehouse.
Justice Mr.
section Mellor said d
dt wouldno aappearo frnolma r
nh
ea
-t
decision that
store dealers in actual
opoovsseeysisoiognt,hbouatrttoiolet.he pos-
session of the persons c
The Lord Chief Justice said that marine-store
complete immunity if that were
tdheealoeasrsowould enjoy
case.
Mr. Metcalfe said that would be so where evidence
was not sufficient to charge the marine store deale
as a receiver of stolen property. If the court should
decide that the act did not apply to such cases as
this, it would be a grand day for the receivers of
stolen property in the East-end of London, and it
would have the effect of reversing the practice that
had been pursued by the police magistrates for the
last 18 or 20 years, in convicting marine-store
dealers under the 24th section for the unlawful pos-
session of goods which were reasonably supposed to
have been stolen.

The Lord Chief Justice, without calling on Mr.
Poland, said it was the 66th section of 2d and 3d
Vic., c. 47, which made the offence under the 24th
section of the 2d and 3d Vic., c. 71. It was a great
pity the law did not meet such a case as the present,
but it was to be hoped the law in this respect would
soon be altered. The conviction must be quashed.
The other cases disposed of did not present any
feature of general public interest.

The New York papers announce the arrival, by
a recent steamer from England, of Mr. Edmund Falconer,
author of " Peep o' Day" and " Oonagh." The last-
nall/QCI 41-41114h0 iutcncb 1n ie ing9lit qvuntry.