
    United States v. Barlow.
    On a trial for larceny, of the goods of T. Lee, evidence that the goods were the property of a deceased person in the possession and management of T. Lee, will support the indictment.
    The jury must believe or reject the whole of the prisoner’s confession. But the offer of a bribe by the prisoner to the officer, to permit him to escape, is evidence independent of the confession.
    Indictment for stealing a horse, the property of Col. Thomas Lee. It was objected, on the trial, that the property was not in Thomas Lee, but belonged to the estate of Calvin Washington, deceased. But it being proved that Thomas Lee had the possession and management of that estate,
   The CouRT

held that the property was well laid, and proved as laid. The confession of the prisoner bein£ given in evidence, the Court instructed the jury that they must believe or reject the whole.

Cranch, J., doubted.

In the same conversation, the prisoner offered the witness a watch, and a deed of his house, if he would suffer him to escape.

The Court instructed the jury that this offer of the watch and deed was a separate fact, not depending on the confession before alluded to, and therefore good evidence by itself.

Kilty, C. J., doubting.  