Criminal Law and Practice in Scotland
| Date | 01 April 1944 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X4401700204 |
| Published date | 01 April 1944 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
102
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
RECOVERY OF
STOLEN
GOODS
AND INNKEEPER'S
LIEN
Marsh v.
Commissioner
of
Police
After aconviction for larceny there is
not
infrequently acontest
between two or more claimants of
the
stolen goods.
The
Police
(Property) Act, 1897, section
I,
provides
that
an application may be
made to
the
court
for
the
possession of stolen
property
which is held in
police custody.
In
Marsh v.
Commissioner
of
Police
(60 T.L.R. 96)
there
were two applications
under
this section to
the
petty
sessional divisional
court
of Spelthorne, Middlesex, for
the
possession of a stolen ring: one
application was made by
the
jewellers from
whom
the
offender stole it,
the
other
on behalfof
the
Ritz Hotel
with
whom
he
had
left
it
as security
for
the
payment of his hotel bill.
The
case
turned
on
the
peculiar
right
of innkeepers to exercise a lien over
the
goods of their guests.
An innkeeper by
the
common law is given a lien on, or a
right
to
hold,
the
luggage or property which
the
guest brings
with
him
to
the
inn
and
which
the
innkeeper receives as such.
The
lien is good to
the
extent of
the
bill for
board
and
lodging
and
can be
turned
to account
by selling
the
goods.
In
this case
the
guest, who was later convicted
at
the
Central Criminal
Court
of larceny of
the
ring,
did
not
bring
the
ring
with
him
on first arriving at
the
hotel.
He
obtained possession of
it from
the
jewellers a day or two later.
He
handed
it over to
the
hotel
as security for
the
payment of
the
bill which he was quickly asked to pay.
The
justices held
that
the
hotel in these circumstances
had
made
out
their
claim to a lien
and
ordered
the
ring to be
handed
over to
them
from
the
custody of
the
Police.
But
on a case stated
the
Divisional
Court
decided in favour of
the
jewellers, distinguishing between
property
received as
part
of
the
guest's luggage
and
the
guest's
other
property.
The
Court
held
that
the
ring
had
never been received as
part
of
the
guest's luggage.
The
hotel was in
the
position of an ordinary pledgee of
stolen goods. As
the
hotel
had
no special privilege by way of innkeeper's
lien
the
true
owner could interpose
and
get
possession of his property.
Criminal
Law
and Practice in Scotland
WHEN
MUST
ASHERIFF
DISQUALIFY?
Henderson
v. Brodie
BROD IE, a
motor
driver, was charged, in
the
sheriff
court
at
Cupar,
that
he was in charge of a motor lorry on a road while
under
the
influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having
proper
control of
the
lorry, in contravention of
the
Road Traffic Act, 1915,
section IS.
He
tendered a plea of guilty
through
asolicitor who
To continue reading
Request your trial