Odger's English Common Law

CHANGE OF POSSESSION. 345
delivered by the vendor to the purchaser, no subsequent dealing with them
by the ^purchaser can amount to larceny, even though they are never paid
for. A fortiori, if the goods were sold and delivered to him on credit.
Again, a question sometimes arises as to whether the stolen goods should
be described in the indictment as the property of a husband or of his wife.
The fact that goods were in the husband's house is some evidence that the
goods were his property ; but if they are in fact the separate property of
his wife, they should be described as her property—and this, whether she
is residing with her husband or not. 1 For since the passing of the Married
Women's Property Act, 1882, 2 it is quite possible for a married woman to
have separate possession of a chattel apart from her husband, although they
may live under the same roof. And now even her own husband can be
convicted of stealing a married woman's separate property. 3
From the above illustrations it is clear that it is not always
a simple matter to lay the ownership of the stolen goods
in the right person. The property may be laid in different
persons in separate counts of the same indictment, e.g., one
count may describe the vendor, and another count the purchaser,
as the owner of the goods. The judge, moreover, has power
to amend the indictment if it appears from the evidence that
the person named in the indictment is not the true owner. 4
III.
Next, the goods must be taken out of the possession of the
owner, into the possession of the thief. 5
There must be a
change of possession. The goods must pass into the indepen-
dent physical control of the thief without the consent of the
owner ;
and the thief must unlawfully assume dominion over
them, e.g., by placing them in his pocket, or even by grasping
them in his hand.
This rule, that there can be no larceny without a change of
possession, caused much difficulty in former days in cases
where the property of a husband had been stolen from him
by his wife. For at common law husband and wife were one
person, and therefore her possession was still his possession ;
and so she could not steal his goods. 6
1 B. v. Murray and others, [1903] 2 K. B. 385.
Further, if the goods
" 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 12 ; see B. v. ,Payne, [1906] 1 K. B. 97. ',;
3 See infra, and p. 346.
1 B. y. Murray and others, [1906] 2 K. B. at p. 388.
6 B. v. Smith (1852), 2 Den. C. C. 449.
• 1 Hale, 513 ; and see R. v. Kenny (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 307 ; R. v. Creamer, [1919]
1 K. B. 564.