Mistake in Larceny
| Published date | 01 April 1957 |
| Date | 01 April 1957 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201835702100211 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Mistake .
In Larceny
DIF FE RENT schools of thought on jurisprudence hold
differing views as to the effect of judicial decisions on
debatable points. Some regard them as analagous to com-
pletely new ideas, introduced for
the
first time into the body
of the law, whereas others regard
them
merely as the formal
enunciation of ideas which have always been present.
Whether one adopts
the
one attitude or the other, or
even if one has no view on the matter at all,
the
difficulty for
the
practical lawyer of fitting new decisions into
the
jig-saw
puzzle of history remains, and, to continue the metaphor, may
necessitate in some cases
the
discarding of some of
the
pieces
which have already been assembled to form an apparently
coherent picture. Breaking
up
the picture and re-assembling
the
pieces is not, however, lightly to be undertaken.
The
decision in Moynes v. Coopper (1956 1
Q.B.
439:
20
J.C.L. 154) undoubtedly raises problems of this nature in an
acute form.
The
facts are well known. Moynes, who
had
earlier received an advance of wages, was given by mistake
by
the
pay clerk, a fellow-employee, a sealed pay packet con-
taining
the
full amount of wages which would have been due
had
he not already
had
the advance. He did not open
the
packet until
that
evening, at home, and then discovered
the
over-payment
and
appropriated it. He was convicted of
stealing the surplus, and on appeal to quarter sessions
the
decision was reversed.
The
prosecutor applied for a case to
be stated,
and
the Divisional Court
(Lord
Goddard, C.J.,
Hilbery, J.
and
Stable, J., who dissented from
the
majority
decision) held
that
the decision of Quarter Sessions was
correct
and
that
Moynes was therefore not guilty of larceny.
It is not
part
of the object of this article to consider
the
merits or demerits of
that
decision;
the
object is merely to
attempt to fit the new piece into the picture of the law of
larceny, if
that
be possible, or, if necessary, to remake the
picture to accommodate it.
The
materials available are
the
definition of larceny laid
down by Parliament in
the
Larceny Act, 1916, section
I,
and
177
To continue reading
Request your trial