Adcock v Archibald
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 12 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 8. |
| Date | 12 March 1925 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice-General, Lord Hunter, Lord Sands.
Crimes—Fraud—Hutch-pinning—Complaint—Relevancy—Fraud involving no pecuniary loss.
A miner was convicted on a charge of having fraudulently removed from a hutch the pin indicating that the coal therein had been worked by another miner and substituting a pin indicating that it had been worked by himself, and of thus inducing the coalowners to pay him the sum due for working the coal. Under the minimum wage system in force at the colliery, the coalowners were bound to make up the sums earned by the miners to a statutory wage per shift, and, as the sums earned for coal worked by both the accused and the other miner fell short of the minimum wage, the alteration of the pins made no difference either as to the total amount which the coalowners were bound to make up or as to the amount which each of the two miners was entitled to receive.
Held that pecuniary loss was not an essential element in the crime of fraud, and that, as the coalowners were induced by false pretences to do what they would otherwise not have done, namely, to credit the accused with the amount due for working the coal in the hutch, the accused had rightly been convicted of fraud.
Edward Adcock, miner, and John Adcock, miner's drawer, were charged in the Sheriff Court of Stirling, Dumbarton, and Clackmannan, at Stirling, on a complaint at the instance of James Rennie Archibald, Procurator-fiscal, which bore that ‘on 16th January 1925, at No 7 Branch in the North Mine Section of the Hartley Seam of Coal in No. 2 Pit Bannockburn Colliery, in the parish of St Ninians and county of Stirling, occupied by Messrs The Alloa Coal Co., Limited, you, acting in concert, did from a hutch loaded with coal which had been worked by William Wilson, miner, 21 Maitland Place, Cowie, fraudulently remove the pin indicating that the coal therein had been so worked and substitute a pin indicating that the said coal had been worked by you, and did thus induce the said Alloa Coal Co., Limited, on 23rd January 1925, at the pay office at said colliery, to pay to you, the said Edward Adcock, instead of to the said William Wilson, Is. 31/2d. for working said coal.’
The accused pleaded not guilty, and on 19th February 1925 the Sheriff-substitute (Leslie), after evidence led, found the accused guilty.
The accused presented a bill of suspension, which set forth:—(Stat. 5) ‘Both complainers gave evidence on their own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn v HM Advocate
...v Georgia(2018) ECHR 553referred to. Cases referred to: AD v Netherlands (21962/93) ECtHR, 11 January 1994, unreported Adcock v Archibald 1925 JC 58; 1925 SLT 258 Advocate (HM) v ARK [2013] HCJAC 107; 2013 SCCR 549; 2013 SCL 901; 2013 GWD 30–594 Advocate (HM) v IP [2017] HCJAC 56; 2017 SCCR......
-
John Humphries Parkes V. Cintec International Limited
...as 6/6 had been registered by the Keeper as a result of fraud. The petitioner referred to the definition of fraud in Adcock v Archibald 1925 JC 58 as the procuring of a practical result by means of deceit and what was said in Macdonald v Tudhope 1984 SLT 23 as to it being sufficient for utt......
-
R. v. Côté and Vézina, (1986) 64 N.R. 93 (SCC)
...178; 62 N.R. 161; 12 O.A.C. 33, refd to. [para. 35]. R. v. Wines, 37 Cr. App. Rep. 197, agreed with [para. 43]. Adcock v. Archibald, [1925] J.C. 58, refd to. [para. R. v. Adduono, [1940] O.R. 184; 73 C.C.C. 152, refd to. [para. 54]. Brodie v. R., [1936] S.C.R. 188, refd to. [para. 55]. R. v......
-
Kerr v Hill
...v. Millar, (1847) Arkley, 355. 2 O'Malley v. Strathern, 1920 J. C. 74. 3 Macdonald, Criminal Law, (4th ed.) p. 93; Adcock v. Archibald, 1925 J. C. 58; Rex v. ManleyELR,[1933] 1 K. B. 529; Hume on Crimes (3rd ed.), vol. i, p. ...
-
The uses of irresistible inference. Protecting the system from criminal penetration through more effective prosecution of money laundering offences
...“Depriving criminals of their ill-gotten gains: is it happening?”, Journal ofthe Law Society of Scotland, 24 March.Adcock v. Archibold [1925], JC 58, 1925 Scots Law Times 258.Bell, R.E. (2002), “Abolishing the concept of ‘predicate offence’”, Journal of Money LaunderingControl, Vol. 6 No. 2......