
    Commonwealth vs. James O’Hara.
    An indictment for larceny of property pledged and in the possession of the pledgee may describe it as the property and in the possession of the pledgor.
    Indictment for larceny of “ the property, goods and chattels of Samuel Adams, in his possession then and there being.”
    At the trial in the municipal court of Boston at July term 1857, the evidence tended to show that the property alleged to have been stolen was deposited with George Bond and others, as security for a loan of money from them, which was to be repaid at the pleasure of the pledgor. The defendant asked the court to rule that this evidence did not support the allegation in the indictment. But Abbott, J. ruled that “ if the property so alleged to be stolen belonged to Samuel Adams, and was pledged to Bond as security for a loan of money, with the right to resume possession by Adams, on paying the loan at his will, it was sufficient to meet the allegation in the indictment.” To this ruling the defendant, being found guilty, alleged exceptions.
    
      B. F. Butter & N. St. J. Green, for the defendant.
    
      S. H. Phillips, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   Dewey, J.

This case falls directly within the principle of the Rev. Sts. c. 133, § 11, declaring it to be sufficient if either the general or special property in the goods stolen be in the person alleged in the indictment. Such was also the rule at common law, independently of the statute. Commonwealth v. Morse, 14 Mass. 217. Archb. Crim. Pl. (13th ed.) 34, 271.

Exceptions werruled.  