Questions of larceny at common law often arose where the re lationship of husband and wife existed, and the matter was first dealt with by statute by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. Now, by sec. 36 of the Larceny Act, 1916, a wife has the same remedies and redress for the protection and security of her own separate property as if such property belonged to her as a feme sole: Provided that no proceedings may be taken by a wife against her husband while they are living together as to or con cerning any property claimed by her, nor while they are living apart as to or concerning any act done by the husband while they were living together concerning property claimed by the wife, unless such property has been wrongfully taken by the husband when leaving or deserting or about to leave or desert his wife. A wife doing an act with respect to any property of her husband which, if done by the husband in respect to property of the wife, would make the husband liable to criminal proceedings by the wife, is in like manner liable to criminal proceedings by her hus band. The effect of this section and the proviso was considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Rex v. Creamer (26 Cox, C. C. 393).
At common law a joint owner of a chattel could not be guilty of larceny. Partnership property was dealt with by a statute, and now, by sec. 4o (4) of the Larceny Act, 1916.
A vast number of acts of the Scottish parliament dealt with larceny. The general policy of the acts was to make larceny what was not larceny at common law, e.g., stealing fruit, dogs, hawks or deer, and to extend the remedies, e.g., by giving the justiciar authority throughout the kingdom, by making the master in the case of theft by the servant liable to give the latter up to justice, or by allowing the use of fire-arms against thieves. The general result of legislation in England and Scotland has been to assimilate the law of larceny in both kingdoms. As a rule, what would be larceny in one would be larceny in the other.
In English law, various points of importance arise in connection with chattels which have been the subject of larceny and have not been returned to the possession of their owner. The owner of the goods stolen has an action against the thief for the goods or their value. How far he is entitled to pursue his civil right to the exclusion of criminal prosecution does not seem very clear upon the authorities, but see Midland Insur ance Co. v. Smith (1881, L.R. 6, Q.B.D., 568).
Formerly a misdemeanour at common law, this is now governed by the Larceny Act, 1916, which, by section 33, provides that every person who receives any property knowing the same to have been stolen or obtained in any way whatsoever under circumstances which amount to felony or misdemeanour shall be guilty of an offence of the like degree (whether felony or misdemeanour) and on conviction thereof liable—(a) in the case of felony, to penal servitude for any term not exceeding 14 years; (b) in the case of misde meanour, to penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years; (c) in either case, if a male under the age of 16 years, to be once privately whipped in addition to any punishment to which he may by law be liable. Receiving a mail bag or postal packet is made an equal felony with stealing. Every receiver
may be indicted and convicted, whether the principal offender has or has not been previously convicted, or is or is not amenable to justice, and every person who, without lawful excuse, knowing the same to have been stolen or obtained in any way whatsoever under such circumstances that if the act had been committed in the United Kingdom the person committing it would have been guilty of felony or misdemeanour, receives or has in his pos session any property so stolen or obtained outside the United Kingdom, is guilty of an offence of like degree.
Under the same act (sec. 42) a justice may issue a search warrant, and by sec. 43, whenever any person is being proceeded against for receiving any property, knowing it to have been stolen, or for having in his possession stolen property, for the purpose of proving guilty knowledge there may be given in evi dence at any stage of the proceedings—(a) the fact that other property stolen within the period of 12 months preceding the date of the offence charged was found or had been in his pos session; (b) on certain conditions, the fact that within the five years preceding the date of the offence charged he was convicted of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty.
For the general law as to the civil rights and liabilities of the owner and third parties in respect of stolen goods, see SALE OF GOODS, but the matter is dealt with by two acts of parliament which affect the criminal courts. Originally the law as to the restitution of stolen property was governed by sec. ioo of the Larceny Act, 1861, a section that was fully considered by the House of Lords in Bentley v. Vilmont (1887, 12 Ap. Cas. 471). That section has been re placed by sec. 45 of the Larceny Act, 1916, which provides that "If any person guilty of any such felony or misdemeanour as is mentioned in this act, in stealing, taking, obtaining, extort ing, embezzling, converting, or disposing of, or in knowingly re ceiving, any property, is prosecuted to conviction by or on behalf of the owner of such property, the property shall be restored to the owner or his representative." Compounding Theft.—As to compounding offences and cor ruptly taking rewards, compounding theft, or theftbote (re demptio furti), that is, taking back stolen goods or receiving com pensation on condition of not prosecuting, is a misdemeanour at common law. It need not necessarily be committed by the owner of the goods. Under sec. 34 of the Larceny Act, 1916, it is a felony punishable by seven years' penal servitude to take money or reward corruptly for helping to recover stolen goods without using all due diligence to bring the offender to trial. By sec. 102 of the Larceny Act, 1861, to advertise or print or publish any advertisement offering a reward for the return of stolen goods, and using any words purporting that no questions will be asked, etc., renders the offender liable to a penalty of Lso. This penalty must, by the Larceny (Advertisements) Act, 187o, be sued for within six months, and the assent of the attorney-general is neces sary. Various acts provide for the liabilities of pawnbrokers, publicans, marine-store dealers and others into whose possession stolen goods come. (See also EMBEZZLEMENT; FALSE PRE