98 PACTS, rAILTJEES, AIS^D FRAUDS.
immediately to tender his resignation; but at the same time expressed his thanks for the kindness he had received from the company for many years. He also stated that, if he was wanted, he should be found during the day at the Olympic Theatre, and if he went out he should leave word when he would return.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cockburn.—Prisoner had been more than ten years in the service of the company. He held two shares, and witness presumed that he received the dividend upon them. Before any cheques were drawn for fire or life losses, the claims were examined and submitted to the treasury committee, and every cheque was signed by the chairman or deputy-chairman and two of the directors, and countersigned by the cashier or secretary. A book was kept for the purpose of making entries of all such transactions, and entries were made of every cheque in several other books. The book kept by the committee would show the particulars of every transaction, and of every cheque that was signed in the course of the business. He was aware that the prisoner surrendered to meet the charge, but did not know that he made an appointment to do so.
Re-examined.—The prisoner would not, in the ordinary course of his business, have access to the book in which the cheques were kept, but he might have done so. Several leaves appear to have been torn from that book.
Mr. Ellis, clerk to Messrs. Freshfield, the solicitors for the prosecution, proved that he served a notice upon the prisoner to produce the cheque in question, and a number of other papers.
Mr. J. Ashby, ledger clerk at the London and Westminster Bank, proved that the prisoner drew upon the £1400 check, and that there was only a balance of £20 11s. 9d. at present in his favour.
The Attorney-General then put in the Act of Parliament under which the company was formed, and this closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Cockburn then submitted that the prosecution must fail, inasmuch as the prisoner was a partner in the company, and therefore could not be charged with larceny, or stealing part of his own property. The learned counsel cited several cases where the members of benefit societies had been indicted for stealing a portion of the funds, and in which juries, upon the facts, had returned verdicts of "guilty," which had afterwards been reversed, upon the ground that the parties stood in the position of co-partners, having a joint interest in the funds, and therefore could not be convicted of stealing their own property.
The learned Judges, without hearing the Attorney-General in reply to the objection, overruled it, upon the ground that the present case differed entirely from those that had been cited. They said it appeared to them that where the body of proprietors of a company invested a portion of their
