JB/070/228/001

Click Here To Edit

LARCENY EMBEZZLEMENT

After having thus endeavour'd to establish a comprehensiblean intelligible distinction between these two crimes
it will be edifying to observe how they have been confounded —

If we believe Serj.t Hawkins speaking from his Judgement + — " If a party
be guilty of no Trespass in taking the Goods, he cannot be guilty of Felony" in carrying them away"<add>[+]</add>

+ 1. Hawk, 89-SS2.
[+] and agreeable to this he observes SS3 (speaks)
f and for this he cites a decision an authority) that "a
"Carrier who receives Goods in order"
"to carry them to a certain place, "
"cannot be said to steal them,"
by imbezzeling of them afterwards."
now by stbr being said to steal them
it appears by the same fiction, he
means, being felonouslyguilty. [of Felony,
that is of Larceny.]

If we believe the same Sergt. Hawkins speaking in the next page from his
Authorities, it Ca opening a Bank and taking out a part with intent to steal things
may . gaining possession to possession are within another
Now in both these cases, by the supposition was is the original taking the same, and means
of them a trespass.

If it be said on his behalf, that in the case last part he means not the origin
taking of the whole which was no trespass, but the partial taking [which according in the idea here attributed
to him ], besides that the Idea of ++ two takings one within another is not very satisfactory I
++ of taking the same thing over again
after he had got it see not how this second taking can be kept contra-distinct clear from the "carrying away", to who
my apprehension necessarily includes it.

At least if, the most of possessions [acquired by] this taking within after <add>upon</add> in taking
first second of which was no trespass and antheother not, was what he conceived; he should have g<add>iven</add>
some notice of his meaning

# It is a vulgar that a man
no good to be hanged for a Sheep as
a Lamb — but according to thehave the advice of
the Law is do [ should act] madder not with
the Lamb, but by all means take
the Sheep & heyou would not be hanged
at all.

The truth of the matter seems to be [this] that there may be two distinct takings con
distrathe first<add></add> which was by the delvingconsent of the owner not being a trespass, of the pa
not being with the consent of the owner being one: and lastly a carrying away which is distinguishable in act from this last
for 3 example 4 he 1 might 2 take some of the goods out of the , which is the
partial taking distinct from the entire one: and yet not delivering the part with
the rest, not be said to have carried it away: but then the carrying away in this
case necessarily including the taking was superfluous, contrary to the ideawhich prior
and the Indictments & to which he accedes.

# Sect.7. p.90

+++ much better than from these cases
which are ambiguous, prolific of
debate, & in appearance at least,
contrary & inconsistent
nor can the Law be belied from
them at all but through the
evidence of that maxim.

Laying aside his account of these doctrines, it is curious to observe concerning the dra
themselves how a man "to suffer for taking ever so small a part which he cannot by any means suff
if he takes the whole, unless he has first arrived if to the place where it was deliso long as he has never taken it to the place of destination #
whereas the [matterpoint of] his having no right to do what he did, & his consciousness of his having none [of that
matter] may appear by a variety of circumstances as plainly where he has mad away
with the whole as where he has filched only a part

Now these and [a multitudeseveral other of other] cases might be part, in which the Act has been daction determined
not to be felonious; which cases serving as a ruler for future determinations only and virtue of their
conformity toconcurrence to the establishment of that maxim, that taking or keeping where there is c of th as not Felony
the establishment of that general maxim will answer the purpose without any further specificationspecifying them.
That maxim settles the Law at once extends controversy or ambiguity: +++

EMBEZZLEMENT

definit

Identifier: | JB/070/228/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 70.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering
Box	070	Main Headings	of laws in general
Folio number	228	Info in main headings field	larceny embezzlement
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::gr [crown motif] [britannia with shield motif]]]
Marginals		Paper Producer
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	23343
Box Contents