Larceny
| Date | 01 January 1958 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X5803100112 |
| Published date | 01 January 1958 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
66
THE
POLICE
JOURNAL
the basis on which this exception rests being that the court will
not
stultify itself by embarking on a trial in which, if a verdict of Guilty is
returned, no effective order by way of sentence can be made. In
our
judgment these contentions of the Crown are substantially sound and
the existence of these exceptions, and it may be
that
there are others, is
by no means inconsistent with the general rule
....
We are not deciding
that in every case where an agent of a limited company acting in its
business commits a crime the company is automatically to be held
criminally responsible. Whether in any particular case there is evidence
to go to the jury that the criminal act of an agent, including his state
of
mind, intention, knowledge, or belief, is the act of the company . . .
depends on the nature of the charge, the relevant position of the
officer or agent, and the other relevant facts and circumstances of the
case."
"NAP"
Larceny
(Continued from page 274).
FRAUDULENTLY AND
WITHOUT
ACLAIM OF
RIGHT
Without a Claim
of
Right: The openness or secrecy with which an
act is done is an important element in the consideration of this crime.
It
is a good defence for the accused to show that in good faith he
believed he had a right to the article he is charged with stealing.
A claim of right is always a matter for the Court to decide.
If
goods are taken under abona fide claim of right, however un-
founded, it will not be larceny, R. v. Bernhard, (1938) 2 All. E.R. 140,
as a claim of right means an honest claim.
It
need not be well founded
in law or fact.
N.B.:
Examples are given below.
(a) Repairer seizing Goods: Held not larceny where an umbrella
repairer, not paid for his work, seized the umbrella back from its
owner, R. v. Wade (1869), 11 Cox C.C. 549.
(b) Husband taking Wife's Purse: In R. v. Clayton (1920), 15 Cr. App.
Rep. 45, a conviction for larceny was quashed because the jury
had
not been asked whether a husband living apart from his wife, and who
alleged she had been indebted to him, had a claim of right to take the
money from her purse.
(c) Article Abandoned: If goods are taken under abona fide claim
of
right because the taker believes the owner has abandoned them this
may not be larceny. A bona fide claim of right may be disputed where
there is a secret taking of the goods, or a subsequent concealment of
same, or altering the appearance
of
same, or denying the taking.
To continue reading
Request your trial