Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-09-30

a PLEDGEE PROPERTY HE HAS
PLEDGED TO SECURE A DEBT.
WITH INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE
PLEDGEE OF HIS SECURITY. THE
PLEDGoR is GUILTY OF LAR
CENY.
Henry was convicted of larceny and
appealed.
The facts proved were as follows:
Temple Mack. the prosecutrix, testi-
iied that the accused came to her to en-
gage board. She replied to him that he
would nave to pay her in advance, as
she had lost SO much by boarders. Ac:
cused replied that he had trunk full
OF clothes and bicycle. and that he
would deliver them to her as security
Tor the board. This conversation took
place during the day, and that night
the accused came back to the home of
prosecutriN, bringing with him his
trunk and bicycle. and said. Here is
SUIT of clothes that cost me $500, and
bicycle, that 1 turn over to you as
security for my board" She accord
lnSly received these chattels, and had
them placed in room in her house oc-
cupfed by her son. The accused also
was assigned to this room. where he
lodged as q boarder. He kept the key
to his trunk. wore the clothes, and
rode the bicycle occasionally. In the
trunk was Il new suit of clothes. He
agreed to pay two dollars per week for
board, and he remained in the house
as boarder little over three weeks,
Tor which he was due seven dollars. A
demand was made on him for the
money. He left the house. leaving the
bicycle and trunk therein. Two or three
days afterwards the landlady missed
the bicycle. She then examined his
trunk, and found the new suit of
clothes had also been taken away. It
further appeared from the testimony
that the accused had sold the bicycle.
and was wearing the new suit of
clothes in another place, where he was
engaged in work.
The court says:
There can be no question about the
soundness Of the proposition that prop
erty stolen from a bailee may be charg-
ed in an indictment to be his property,
and authorities have even gone to the
extreme of holding that property stolen
from one who had himself stolen it
could be alleged as his. 1t is equally
true that property in the hands of a
bailee may be stolen by the general
owner. From these principles it neces-
sarily follows that when property has
been delivered by the owner to one as
pledge to secure a debt, the PLEDGE
has sufficient interest in the same to
maintain prosecution against any
one. even the general owner, by charg-
ing that the property belonged to him,
the Pledge. We do not understand,
however,. that this principle Ia denied.
Counsel for plaintiff in error seek a
reversal in this case upon the idea that
the testimony does not show such @
delivery of the property in question as
would constitute a valid pledge in law.
We think there is sufficient testimony
for the judge to infer an actual deliv-
cry by the accused of this property as
security for the payment of his board
The fact that he was permitted to use
1t does not deprive the Pledge in this
case of the right to it's custody and
control. Nothing can be gathered from
the evidence<in the record to indicate
that she ever consented to such a use
or disposition of the same as to abso-
lutely deprive her of such possession.
portion of the property pledged was
actually sold to another narty by the
peldgor without her knowledge and
consent, and the circumstances develop
ed by the evidence touching the man
ner Of its disposition by the pledgor
were amply sufficient for the judge to
infer that he had a fraudulent purpose
of deprivinE his creditor of this securi-
ty. This identical question was made
and passed upon by the Supreme Court
of Iowa in the case of Bruley V. Rose,
II N. W., GEO. 1t was there decided:
"a Pledge has special property in the
thing pledged, and pledgor, who takes
the property from the pledgee's pos
session with the felonious DESIGN of de-
priving such n Pledge of his security.
may be guilty of larceny" in that case
it appeared that Bruley had been
charged with larceny of span of
horses which he had bought from Rose.
For these horses Bruley was indebted
to Rose in the sum of S45.60. and TO Sc
cure the payment of TINS balance it was
claimed that Bruley delivered the
horses to Rose as pledge, and after
wards gained possession of them under
false pretenses, and with the felonious
design of depriving him of his security.
1t appeared that Rose did give him per-
mission to take the horses for partic-
ular purpose. 1t was accordingly held
that, if he took them for fraudulent
purpose. he was guilty of larceny. APP
plying these principles TO the facts in
this case, and we think the court did
right in overruling the motion for a
new trial. Judgment affirmed.
INDIAN SOCKAlExJs.