Odger's English Common Law

382 RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, &C
times happens, they have just heard the thief plead guilty to
the larceny. It is, of course, open to the prosecution to call
the thief as a witness on this issue—as on all others ;
and if
under examination on the trial of the receiver he admits his
guilt in the witness-box, this is some evidence to go to the
jury ; but if uncorroborated, it is entitled to little weight, and
the judge will no doubt advise the jury to acquit the receiver. 1
The goods must have been dealt with in such a manner that they are
technically " stolen goods " in law, when the prisoner receives them. Thus,
if goods are stolen and the thief captured, and the owner of the goods then
allows the thief to take them to the receiver in accordance with their
previous arrangement in order to entrap] him, no conviction for receiving
can be sustained ; for the goods, when received, were no longer " stolen
goods." 2 For this reason too, difficulties often arose, when the prisoner
had received from a wife goods that belonged to her husband or from a
husband goods that belonged to s his wife it is only in ;
certain cases that
one spouse can steal from the other. 4
Formerly a person could not be convicted, for receiving within jurisdiction
goods that had been stolen abroad. But now by section 33 (4) of the
Larceny Act, 1916, any person, who without lawful excuse receives or has
in his possession any property stolen outside the United Kingdom, knowing
it to have been stolen, is liable to penal servitude to the extent of seven
years, and can be tried for that offence in any county in England in which
he was apprehended or is in custody. 5
(ii.) It must also be proved that the prisoner consciously
received the goods into his actual possession. If the goods
still remain in the exclusive possession of the thief, the
prisoner cannot be convicted, however clear may be the
evidence that he knew that they were stolen and intended to
receive them. 6 There must be a change of possession.
But it is not necessary that the prisoner should have manual
possession of the goods ; it is sufficient if they are to his
knowledge in the actual possession of some one over whom
he has control, and who holds them to his order. 7
Moreover,
if the receiver has joint possession of the goods with the
i R v. Robinson (1864), 4 F. & F. 43.
* R v Schmidt (1866), L. B. 1 C. C.,K. 15 ; R. r. Hancock (1878), 14 Cox, 119 ; R.
v. Vilietuky, [1892] 2 Q. B. 597.
» B. v. Kenny (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 307.
* See ante, pp. 345, 346.
« See s. 39 (1).
* B v. Wiley (1850), 20 L. J. M. 0. 4.
7 B. v. Smith (1855), 24 L. J. M. C. 135.