¶1 The goods alleged in the indictment to have been stolen by the defendant, belonged to the prosecutor, and had been in his actual possession. He entrusted them for a few days to the custody and care of the defendant, his servant. In contemplation of law the goods were in the possession of the owner, and the taking of them by the defendant, with the fraudulent purpose of converting them to his own use, was larceny, and the defendant was properly convicted, 2. East P. C. 564, sec. 14.
¶2 The motion to quash the indictment, could not be entertained .after verdict, and it was properly disallowed by his Honor.
¶3 The grounds for the motion in arrest of judgment are untenable :
¶4 1. The Court in which the prosecution was instituted was authorized by the laws of the Provisional Government, and invested with the necessary power of administering public • justice, and such laws and judicial proceedings are recognized as valid, and are continued in our present government. Const. Art. IY, Sec. 24.
¶5 Our present government was formed under the same authority which organized and sustained the Provisional Government. The two governments are parts of the same system, and the laws of the preliminary government are properly continued until they are altered by the legislation of the permanent government.
¶6 2. The jurisdiction of Superior Courts in cases of larceny is not altered by the recent Act regulating “ Proceedings in.. *558 Criminal Courts.” That Act, in cli. IV, sec. 5, gives jurisdiction to Justices of the Peace incases “ for receiving stolen goods, where the value of the property received does not. exceed five dollars.” This jurisdiction cannot be extended to cases of larceny by an implication arising from ch. IV, sec. *Ir of said Act.
¶7 There is no error in the ruling of his Honor in the Court below, and the judgment must be affirmed.
¶8 Let this be certified, &c.
¶9 Per Curiam. No error.