Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
| Date | 01 April 1953 |
| Published date | 01 April 1953 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835301700201 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The
Journal of Criminal Law
Vox..
XVII.
No.2.
APlin.-
JUND,
1953
Courts of Summary Jurisdiction
LARCE:NY
BY
BAII,EE--CON'VERSION
THERE is no specific offence known to law as
'larceny
bailee' although, since modern
statutory
legislation
enlarged
the
definition of larceny, this
term
has been loosely
used for
the
misappropriation of goods
by
a bailee.
At
Common Law
an
ordinary bailee, to whom achattel
had
been entrusted, could not, since he
took
and
carried away
the
thing with
the
consent of
the
owner, be convicted of
larceny while
the
bailment lasted unless he committed a
trespass
by
breaking bulk. The position was altered
by
s, 4 of
the
Larceny Act, 1857 which
has
been re-enacted
almost
in
the
same words
by
s. 1 (1) of
the
Larceny Act,
1916, " A person
may
be guilty of stealing anything capable
of being stolen
....
notwithstanding
that
he
has
lawful
possession thereof, if, being bailee or
part
owner thereof,
he
fraudulently converts
the
same
to
his own use or
the
use of
any
person other
than
the
owner".
The
courts have given little guidance on
what
exactly
constitutes
the
'conversion' which involves
the
bailee
in
the
guilt of stealing. Generally
it
would appear
that
conversion is committed
by
the
bailee who deals with
the
chattel
not
belonging
to
him in a manner inconsistent
with
the
rights of
the
lawful owner such as assuming full
title
of ownership or asserting aright
to
pass
the
full title. (See
Kenny:
Outlines
of
Criminal Law, p. 221.
An
interesting case in which
the
question of conversion
became
important
was
heard
at
Old
Street
Magistrates'
Court on
the
lOth
January
last.
Joe
Kommey hired a
dinner
suit
and
shirt
on
the
23rd December
and
he should
have returned
them
by
the
27th
December.
He
gave a
117
98
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL LAW
local address
and
the
hire outfitter, having done business
with
Kommey on a previous occasion, did
not
take
adeposit.
The
goods were
not
returned as arranged. A few days
later
the
man
who
had
let
them
out
on hire made enquiries
at
the
address given
by
Kommey,
but
he
had
left. The Police
were informed
and
on being traced
and
questioned Kommey
at
first denied knowledge of
the
goods
but
later
admitted
having
them
at
his lodgings, saying, "Look, officer,
I've
been a
naughty
boy.
Let
me go
and
I'll
take
them
back."
The
goods were subsequently found
at
his lodgings
at
Barnes.
He
was charged with larceny of
the
goods whilst
being bailee thereof.
The
shopman said he usually gave a
few days' grace
and
agreed
that
in this case
the
return
was
only a week overdue.
Counsel on behalf of Kommey submitted, on
the
authority
of R. v. Jackson (1864, 9 Cox 505)
that
there
had
been no conversion
and
that
consequently there was no
case to answer.
In
that
case
the
prisoner was indicted
for larceny as bailee of a coat
and
the
evidence was
that
the
prosecutor
had
lent
the
coat to
the
prisoner to wear for
a
day
and
that
some few days afterwards
the
prisoner left
the
town
and
was found wearing
the
coat on board a vessel
bound
for Australia. Martin B. stopped
the
case, stating
that
in his opinion there was no evidence of a conversion
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
statute.
"The
determination of
the
bailment," he said,
"must
be something analogous
to
larceny
and
some
act
must
be done inconsistent with the
purposes
of
the bailment. As, for instance, in
the
case of
bailment of
an
article of silver for use, melting would be
evidence of a conversion." Lord Alverstone L.C.J. in
considering Jackson's case in R. v. Wakeman (8 Cr.
App.
R.
18) suggested
that
the
ship was probably
not
about
to sail
so immediately as to leave him no opportunity of returning
the
coat.
Had
an immediate departure with
the
coat been
contemplated,
the
decision would be "difficult
to
under- I
stand,
and
of doubtful authority".
The magistrate
at
Old Street, Mr. Leslie Marks, agreed
with
counsel
and
said
that
as Kommey
had
made no
attempt
to
sell or otherwise dispose of
the
dinner suit
and
as
the
period of hire was only
about
a week overdue,
it
could
not
be said
that
there was a conversion. Whatever
lie
may
have
been told
to
the
Police
it
in no way indicated
To continue reading
Request your trial