§ 344. Other words:

2

Goods-Chattels. In statutes and legal writings these words are generally found combined; thus, "goods and chattels." In significance they are nearly alike. Chattels is the more technical word, and it appears to be somewhat the larger in meaning; for we speak of "chattels real," but not of goods real. Both are specially elastic, as liable to be varied in extent of meaning by the subject and context.3 In their largest sense, each, and especially chattels, signifies all property other than real estate. But in the criminal law, as, for example, in statutes against larceny,- these words seldom or never have so wide a meaning. Here, in general, neither comprehends. choses in action; as, bank-notes, mortgage-deeds," and the like,' not being the subjects of larceny at the common law. So likewise a dog, whereof larceny cannot be committed at the common law, is not within the term "goods and chattels" in statutory larceny. By a part of differing judicial opinions, or opinions founded on differing statutes, these words do not include money coin.10 By other opinions, or opinions rendered

9

C. 258; 2 Car. & K. 496; Clark v. Newsam, 5 Railw. Cas. 69, 1 Exch. 131; Reg. v. Atkinson, 2 Moody, 215. Discharge for money.-A receipt in full of all demands is a "discharge for money." Com. v. Talbot, 2 Allen, 161; [Com. v. Brown, 147 Mass. 585, 18 N. E. R. 587, 1 L. R. A. 620.]

1 Crim. Law, II, §§ 358, 785; Crim. Pro., II, §§ 699, 736.

21 Bishop, Mar. Women, § 183. 3 For example, see Ford's Case, 12 Co. 1, 2.

42 Bl. Com. 385; 2 Kent, Com. 342; Wilson v. Rybolt, 17 Ind. 391, [79 Am. D. 486;] Pippin v. Ellison, 12 Ire. 61, [55 Am. D. 403;] Weston v. McDowell, 20 Mich. 353; Gibbs v. Usher, 1 Holmes, 348; Ayres v. French, 41 Conn. 142; Chamberlain v. Western Transp. Co., 44 N. Y. 305, [4 Am. R. 681.]

S. v. Calvin, 2 Zab. 207; Com. v. Swinney, 1 Va. Cas. 146, [5 Am. D. 512;] Rutherford v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 141; Rex v. Hill, Russ. & Ry. 190; Rex

v. Sadi, 1 Leach, 468, 2 East, P. C. 748; S. v. Jim, 3 Murph. 3.

6 Reg. v. Powell, 14 Eng. L. & Eq. 575, 2 Den. C. C. 403.

And see S. v. Foster, 3 McCord, 442. 8 Crim. Law, II, § 773.

9 Findlay v. Bear, 8 S. & R. 571; S. v. Lymus, 26 Ohio St. 400, [20 Am. R. 772. But see Hamby v. Samson, 105 Iowa, 112, 74 N. W. R. 918, 40 L. R. A. 508; S. v. Brown, 9 Bax. (Tenn.) 53, 40 Am. R. 81; Mullaly v. P., 86 N. Y. 365; Kinsman v. S., 77 Ind. 132; S. v. Doe, 79 Ind. 9, 41 Am. R. 599; S. v. Butler (Del.), 43 Atl. R. 480; Com. v. Hazelwood, 84 Ky. 681, 2 S. W. R. 489.]

10 2 East, P. C. 643, 748; Rex v. Guy, 1 Leach, 241, 2 East, P. C. 748; Rex v. Davidson, 1 Leach, 242, note; S. v. Parker, 1 Houst. Crim. 9. And see the observations of Story, J., in U. S. v. Moulton, 5 Mason, 537. According to one case, if an act of parliament vests the property of "goods, chattels, furniture, clothing and debts" in

on other statutes, they do. Some of the differences, and perhaps all, are reconcilable by considerations of the differing connections in which the words stand in the respective statutes. Thus, under an enactment against the larceny of "any goods, wares or merchandise in any vessel upon any navigable river," the word "goods" was construed not even to extend to dollars, or Portugal money, not current by proclamation; but the reason appears to have been that, as it was connected in the clause with "wares or merchandise," the latter limited its meaning.2 By a familiar rule of statutory interpretation,3 there is no objection to giving these words a larger and even their largest meaning, when the legislative will sufficiently appears. And in a case where the term "personal goods" was held to embrace all coin, though circulating as money, the court intimated, contrary to what we have seen to be the general doctrine, that under the phrase "goods and chattels" may be comprehended bank-bills, since they circulate as currency; but not other choses in action, such as promissory notes. Not only articles of merchandise in a shop, but oats, rye and corn, the produce of a man's farm, and lying in his barn, are "goods, wares and merchandise; "the luggage of a passenger going to a steamboat is "goods and merchandise;" and a railroad passenger ticket is a "chattel; "8 as are also sheep, fowls and other animals." Now,

certain persons, the property in money and securities for money is not thereby transferred. Rex v. Beacall, 1 Car. & P. 310, 454; [S. v. Bishop, 98 N. C. 773, 4 S. E. R. 357.]

1 Hall v. S., 3 Ohio St. 575; S. v. Boston, 2 Harring. (Del.) 529; [Brown v. S., 23 Tex. Ap. 214, 4 S. W. R. 588.]

2 Rex v. Leigh, 1 Leach, 52; Rex v. Grimes, 1 Leach, 53, note, 2 East, P. C. 647, Foster, 79, note. And see ante, $ 245.

3 Ante, § 204.

4 Hall v. S., supra.

Hawey, 131 Mo. 339, 32 S. W. R. 1110;
S. C., 141 Mo. 343, 42 S. W. R. 938;
Reg. v. Foley, 17 Cox, C. C. 142;
Ball v. White, 39 Ohio St. 650. But
not a meal purchased at a restaurant.
Reg. v. Jones, 15 Cox, C. C. 475.]

7 Rex v. Wright, 7 Car. & P. 159.
8 Reg. v. Boulton, 1 Den. C. C. 508,
2 Car. & K. 917, 13 Jur. 1034. [A
diploma " issued by an educational
institution. Alexander v. S., 28 Tex.
Ap. 186, 12 S. W. R. 595.]

92 East, P. C. 748. Asses and pigs have been held to be "cattle," within Stat. 9 Geo. 1, ch. 22. Rex v. Chapple, Russ. & Ry. 77; Rex v. Whit ney, 1 Moody, 3; [S. v. Ward, 49 Conn. 429; Haygood v. S., 41 Ark. 6 S. v. Brooks, 4 Conn. 446; [S. v. 479; S. v. Taylor, 13 R. L. 541.]

5U. S. v. Moulton, 5 Mason, 537. And see Rex v. Dean, 2 Leach, 693, 2 East, P. C. 749; Rex v. Mead, 4 Car. & P. 535.

1

§ 345. Further of choses in action as goods and chattels. Not only, as just seen, in reason, but on authority, the term "goods and chattels," in a criminal statute, may include even choses in action when such legislative meaning sufficiently appears. They have been held to comprehend United States treasury notes. And where the stealing of promissory notes was a statutory larceny, and a subsequent enactment made it a misdemeanor to "buy or receive any goods or chattels, knowing the same to have been stolen," the judges of Ireland held that promissory notes fell within the latter act;3 yet substantially a contrary doctrine was laid down in New Jersey. In England, the halves of country bank-notes, sent in a letter, are adjudged goods and chattels; and a bank-note is within the words "money, goods or chattels, wares or merchandises," of 12 Anne, stat. 1, ch. 7, § 1, concerning stealing from a dwelling-house; but the Virginia court denied that such note was included under words similar to those last mentioned." On the whole, therefore, in states where further inquiry on this question is not precluded by adjudication, the courts are permitted to follow what they may deem the leadings of judicial

reason.8

6

5

§ 346. Money.'- The word "money" means, in these statutes, only what is legal tender.10 It was even adjudged in Texas to extend simply to metallic coin, and not to include our

[Kirk v. Roberts (Cal.), 31 Pac. R. Grath, 5 Utah, 525, 17 Pac. R. 116; 620.] S. v. Smith, 9 Wash. 248, 37 Pac. R.

2 Sallie v. S., 39 Ala. 691; Collins v. 290.] P., 39 Ill. 233.

3 Rex v. Crone, Jebb, 47. And see Anonymous, 1 Crawf. & Dix, C. C. 152. See P. v. Kent, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 42; Hall v. S., 3 Ohio St. 575. 4 S. v. Calvin, 2 Zab. 207.

Rex v. Mead, 4 Car. & P. 535. 6 Rex v. Dean, 2 Leach, 693, 2 East, P. C. 646, 749.

7 Com. v. Swinney, 1 Va. Cas. 146, 151, [5 Am. D. 512.] And see Rex v. Hill, Russ. & Ry. 190. [See S. v. James, 58 N. H. 67; Wright v. Com., 82 Va. 183.]

8 [As to "property," see Brown v. S., 23 Tex. Ap. 214, 4 S. W. R. 588; P. v. Williams, 60 Cal. 1; P. v. Mc

9 Crim. Law, II, §§ 357, 482, 785; Crim. Pro., II, §§ 703, 704; ante, § 217; post, §§ 874, 901.

101 East, P. C. 147, 149. And see Hale v. S., 8 Tex. 171; Colson v. S., 7 Blackf. 590. In England, foreign coin is considered mere bullion, unless made current by proclamation. 1 East, P. C. 149. As to "bullion," see also 1 East, P. C. 188; [and S. v. Combe, 47 Kan. 136, 27 Pac. R. 818; Rucker v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 26 S. W. R. 65. And see Fleener v. S., 58 Ark. 98, 23 S. W. R. 1; White v. S. (5 Tex. Cr. R.), 57 S. W. R. 100; Edelhoff v. S., 5 Wyo. 19, 36 Pac. R. 627.]

national greenbacks. Therefore it does not comprehend bankbills, though they pass current, or United States treasury warrants, or county claims, or orders of a railroad company on its treasurer, or mere promissory notes, or bills of exchange," or bank-checks, or ordinarily anything which is a mere representative of money.

§ 347. Jewelry.-A watch and chain are not jewelry,10 but plain gold rings and ear-knobs are."

V. THE PROCEEDINGS.

347a. Elsewhere.-Words and phrases indicating the procedure are chiefly explained in other connections in this series of works. But something remains for this place; as,

Trial.-By the expression "trial" of a criminal cause, the proceedings in open court after the pleadings are finished and it is otherwise ready, down to and including the rendition of the verdict, are commonly meant. Not extending, on the one hand, to such preliminary steps as the arraignment and giving in of the pleas,2 it does not comprehend, on the other hand, a hearing on appeal. But where a statute containing this word is for the ease of the accused person, and so is to be liberally construed, the word may in some connections include steps after verdict; as, a motion in arrest of judgment."

§ 348. Conviction-Attaint.- Ordinarily the word "conviction " signifies the finding of the jury, by verdict, that the defendant is guilty. It does not mean also that sentence against him has been rendered. Likewise one's plea of guilty constitutes a conviction of him. Coke distinguishes thus: "The difference between a man attainted and convicted is, that a man is said convict before he hath judgment; as, if a man be convict by confession, verdict, or recreancy. And when he hath his judgment upon the verdict, confession, or recreancy, or upon the outlawry or abjuration, then he is said to be attaint." But

ages of Spirituous Liquors and Wines,
76 Fed. R. 364, 22 C. C. A. 228.]
1 Crim. Pro., I, §§ 269-274; S. v.
Overton, 77 N. C. 485; U. S. v. Curtis,
4 Mason, 232; Jenks v. S., 39 Ind. 1.
And see Galpin v. Critchlow, 112
Mass. 339, [17 Am. R. 176; S. v. Wool.
sey, 19 Utah, 486, 57 Pac. R. 426.]

2 U. S. v. Curtis, supra. And see, for "before trial," St. Anthony Falls Water-power Co. v. King Bridge, 23 Minn. 186, [23 Am. R. 682;] Mansfield v. Fleck, 23 Minn. 61; Winship v. P., 51 IL 296; [S. v. Little Whirlwind, 22 Mont. 425, 56 Pac. R. 820.]

3 S. v. Overton, supra. Ante, SS 196, 227, 239.

5 Reg. v. Martin, 3 Cox, C. C. 447, 448. Some of the other reports of this case do not contain this point.

64 Bl. Com. 362; Crim. Pro., I, §§ 252, 253; Crim. Law, I, § 903; U. S. v. Gilbert, 2 Sumner, 19, 40; S. v. Overton, 77 N. C. 485; S. v. Applewhite, 75 N. C. 229; York v. Dalhousen, 45 Pa. St.

372; Com. v. Lockwood, 109 Mass. 323, [12 Am. R. 699;] Blair v. Com., 25 Grat. 850; Williams v. U. S., 12 Ct. of Cl. 192. And see S. v. Valentine, 7 Ire. 225; Com. v. Williamson, 2 Va. Cas. 211; Skinner v. Perot, 1 Ashm. 57; S. v. Fuller, 1 McCord, 178; Reg. v. Faderman, 4 New Sess. Cas. 161, Temp. & M. 286, 1 Den. C. C. 565; Co. Lit. 390b; Burgess v. Boetefeur, 8 Scott, N. R. 194; S. v. Anderson, 5 Harring. (Del.) 493; [Reg. v. Blaby, 18 Cox, C. C. 5.]

7P. v. Goldstein, 32 Cal. 432.

8 Co. Lit. 390b. "A verdict, however, is not always necessary to a conviction, which may be by a judgment upon a demurrer, or upon a confession of guilt, or upon a proceeding in outlawry, as well as by a verdict of a jury on a plea of not guilty. The word 'conviction,' in its ordinary sense, may therefore be said to mean the ascertainment of the fact of guilt in a criminal prosecu