Odger's English Common Law

114 THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME.
criminal purposes where it is wilfully done, although the act
itself was merely intended as a means of obtaining some
ulterior object." 1
If a man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving children, he
nevertheless commits larceny.
If a man writes and publishes a book with the object of exposing the
errors of the Church of Rome, and it contains obscene passages, he is
guilty of the misdemeanour of publishing an obscene libel. 2
A man takes a horse from the owner's stable without his consent. If he
intends fraudulently to appropriate it for his own benefit, he is guilty of
theft. If he intends to use it for some temporary purpose of his own and
then to return it to the owner, he commits a trespass only. If he takes the
horse as a distress for rent due from its owner, he commits neither a crime
nor a tort. In each of these cases the act done is substantially the same ;
the intention of the person doing it mainly determines the legal quality of
the act.
To constitute a crime, then, there must in most cases be
both a criminal intention and a criminal act. But it is not
necessary that there should be an intention to do the particular
act that is in fact done. An intent to do any criminal act is
sufficient. But the accused must intend to do some act
which, if he thought aboul it, he would know to' be legally
or morally wrong, and which is in fact criminal by the law
of the land.
It was an offence under the Local Government Act, 1858, 3 to fabricate
any voting paper. The respondent was summoned before justices of the
peaoe for fabricating the voting paper of one Edward Eichards. Mrs.
Richards in her husband's absence made her mark at the foot of the paper
in the presence of the respondent, who then witnessed the mark, describing
it as the signature of Mr. Richards, and wrote the initials, E. R., against
the name of the candidate for whom the vote was intended. The justices
found as facts that Mrs. Richards had authority to put her husband's name
to the paper, and that the respondent londfide believed this to be the case,
and dismissed the charge. On appeal it was held that mens rea was
necessary to constitute an offence under the section, and that, as the
respondent had no criminal or unlawful intention, the justices had rightly
dismissed the summons. 4
Mrs. Tolson was married on September 11th, 1880. She was deserted by
her husband on December 13th, 1881. She and her father on inquiry
1 Criminal Law Commissioners, 4th Rep. p. 16.
2 B. v. Hioklin (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 360 ; Steele v. Brannan (1872), L. R. 7
C. P. 261.
"» 21 & 22 Vict, c. 98, s. 13, sub-s. 5 (now repealed).
4 Th# Aberdare Local Board of Health v. Hammett (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 162.