The Commonwealth v. Chathams
| Decision Date | 29 June 1865 |
| Citation | 50 Pa. 181 |
| Parties | The Commonwealth <I>versus</I> Chathams. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
The jury have a right, in all cases whatsoever, whether capital or otherwise, to find a special verdict, by which the facts of the case are put on the record, and the law is submitted to the judges. It is sufficient if the jury find all the substantial requisites of the charge, without following the technical language used in the indictment, and it does not seem necessary that the jury, after stating the facts, should draw any legal conclusion. Chitty's Crim. Law 642, 644, 645.
The question therefore on the present special verdict is, whether the defendant is guilty of the charge laid in the indictment, which is preferred under the 108th section of the Crimes Consolidation Act of 31st March 1860? In the revision of our criminal law, our revisors, Judges King, Knox, and Mr. Webster, of course took advantage of the improvements made in criminal jurisprudence in England, both as to crimes and procedure within the present century, which have culminated in seven criminal law consolidation amendment acts, passed by the British Parliament on the 6th August 1861. As the revisors in their seventh title — Offences against Personal Property — used largely provisions of the English criminal statutes, it will not be uninstructive to trace the origin of some of them, so far as they are in any way connected with the crime charged against the prisoner.
The original Act of 52 Geo. III., c. 63 (9th June 1812), was passed shortly after the decision in Walsh's Case, in which the twelve judges ruled that the fraud committed by the prisoner upon Sir Thomas Plumer, was not larceny: Russell & Ryan 215; 4 Taunton 258. The prisoner, a stockbroker, was a member of Parliament, and the prosecutor was then solicitor-general, and afterwards successively Attorney-General, Vice-Chancellor, and Master of the Rolls, and the proceeds of the fraud became the subject of an action of trover by the assignees of Walsh, who had become a bankrupt, against Sir Thomas Plumer, which is reported in 3 Maule & Selw. 362, and contains a remarkable opinion of Lord Ellenborough, as to following the proceeds of funds covered with a trust in favour of the principal whenever they can be identified, expressed in that great lawyer's nervous language.
This act in its preamble recited that "it is expedient that due provision should be made to prevent the embezzlement of government and other securities for money, plate, jewels, and other personal effects deposited for safe custody, or for any special purpose, with bankers, merchants, brokers, attorneys, and other agents intrusted by their customers and employers," and then enacted: "That if any person or persons with whom (as banker or bankers, merchant or merchants, broker or brokers, attorney or attorneys, or agent or agents of any description whatsoever) any ordinance, debenture, &c., shall have been deposited, or shall be or remain for safe custody, or upon or for any special purpose," &c., shall embezzle the same with intent to defraud the owner, shall be guilty of misdemeanor. The 2d section, in similar language, punishes embezzlement by bankers and others of sums of money, &c., placed in their hands with orders in writing to invest the same. This act has been the subject of construction in cases collected in 2 Russell on Crimes 192. In Rex v. Prince, 3 Carr. & Payne 512 (12 E. C. L. Rep.), Chief Justice Abbott held, that it applied only to persons to whom such securities, &c., are intrusted in the exercise of their functions or business.
This act was repealed on the 21st June 1827, and on the same day was passed the Act of 7 & 8 Geo. IV., c. 29, "for consolidating and amending the laws of England relative to larceny and other offences connected therewith," which had been prepared under the auspices of Mr. Peel. The 49th section reads as follows: "And for the punishment of embezzlement committed by agents intrusted with property, be it enacted, That if any money or security for the payment of money shall be intrusted to any banker, merchant, broker, attorney, or other agent with any direction in writing to apply such money," and he shall convert the same to his own use and benefit, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and if any chattel or valuable security, &c., shall be intrusted to any banker, merchant, broker, attorney, or other agent for safe custody, &c., and he shall, in violation of good faith, &c., in any manner convert the same to his own use and benefit, &c., every such offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. By the 5th section it is "Provided always, that nothing hereinbefore contained relating to agents shall affect any trustee or mortgagee in respect of any act done by him in relation to the property comprised in or affected by any such trust or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lacy v. State
...98 S.W. 678; U.S. v. Thomas, 15 Wall. (82 U.S.) 344, 21 L.Ed. 89; York County v. Watson, 15 S.C. 1, 40 Am.Rep. 678; Commonwealth v. Chatham, 50 Pa. 181, 88 Am.Dec. 539. Proof that the person named in the as owner of the property had only a special property or interest in the thing is all th......
-
Fulforth v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
... ... overlooked." ... [5] See 6 Standard Pennsylvania Practice, pp ... 176 and 222-224 ... [6] In a criminal case the ... Commonwealth may appeal from a judgment entered by ... the court for the defendant on a special verdict: Com. v ... Chathams, 50 Pa. 181; Com. v. Eichelberger, ... ...
-
Union Trust Co. of New York v. Gilpin
...amended to read for defendant: Cohn v. Scheuer, 115 Pa. 178; Murland v. English, 214 Pa. 325; Clouser v. Patterson, 122 Pa. 372; Com. v. Chathams, 50 Pa. 181; Sewing Machine Co. v. Ins. Co., 201 Pa. 645. The question to be decided in this case was for the jury: Primm v. Haren, 27 Mo. 205; R......
-
Com. v. Yarmark
...conviction of the lesser statutory offense of Removing or Secreting Property to Defraud Creditors. Cf. Annotation, 58 A.L.R. 330; Com. v. Chathams, 50 Pa. 181. Judgments of sentence are affirmed and it is ordered that defendant appear in the court below at such time as he may be there calle......