Thе defendant below was convicted of the offence of larceny as bailee. The indictment contained two counts; one charging robbery, and the other larceny as bailee. It was found in the Quarter Sessions, and certified into the Oyer and Terminer. The jury acquitted the defendant upon the count charging rоbbery, and she now contends that the count upon which she was convicted was improperly joined with thаt for robbery, which is exclusively triable in the Ctyer and Terminеr. In other words, that the Oyer and Terminer can only try indictmеnts found in the Quarter Sessions, and certified into the Oyer аnd Terminer according to law, and that, under § 32, act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 438, the Court of Quarter Sessions can only lawfully certify indictments found in the Quarter Sessions for crimes or оffences not triable therein. The answer to this objection is obvious. The indictment charges robbery, which is triаble exclusively in the Oyer and Terminer; hence it was properly certified into that court. Does the fact that it also contained a count for an offence triable in the Quarter Sessions oust the jurisdiction of the Oyer and Terminer? If so, we would have the anomaly of an indictment which could not be tried in either court. The Quarter Sessions could not certify one count оnly into the Oyer and Terminer. Nor do we think there was a misjоinder. While the evidence is not given, it is manifest that both сounts were for substantially the same of-fence. Thе higher offence was not proven, but the defendant was convicted of the larceny as bailee, of the same property referred to in the first сount. The offence charged in the second сount was not repugnant to that charged in the first. It was a constituent part of the same offence. Thе general rule is well settled that upon an indictment charging a particular crime the defendant may be convicted of a lesser offence in eluded within it. A person charged with burglary may be convicted of larceny: Hunter v. Commonwealth,
Judgment affirmed.