Odger's English Common Law

ROBBERY. 333
tentional injury will not support an indictment for robbery.
Thus, if a thief in cutting off a gentleman's seals were to scratch
or cut his hand, he could not be convicted of this offence.
(iii.) The goods must come into the possession of the thief.
It does not matter if the time during which they were in his
possession was exceedingly short ; but the prosecution must
prove that at some particular moment the prisoner had
possession of them.
Thus, in an old case a thief snatched a lady's earring out of her ear with such
violence that he tore her ear ; he was immediately arrested and searched,
but no earring was found in his possession. When the lady reached her
home, she found it in her back hair. This was held to amount to robbery,
because the thief had had possession of the earring, although only for a
moment. 1 But where a thief, snatching at a lady's purse, knocked it on to
the ground and was arrested before he could pick it up, it was held that he
had Dot committed robbery ;
for he never had possession of the purse. 2
(iv.) Next, the taking must be from the person, or from
the immediate presence of the prosecutor, as where a railway
thief strikes a passenger in the face and snatches his bag from
the seat beside him.
(v.) The prisoner must obtain the goods either by actual
violence or by such conduct as would reasonably inspire fear of
violence in a person of ordinary firmness and courage. It is
not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the individual
prosecutor was actually in fear of the individual prisoner ;
guilt of the prisoner does not depend upon the nerve of the
prosecutor, but upon the effect which his actions and conduct
would have upon the mind of an ordinary man or woman.
Moreover the prisoner must, of course, take possession of tlie
goods against the will of the prosecutor. If the latter gave
up his goods willingly, no crime is committed unless his will-
ingness was induced simply by fear of a greater evil.
Thus, where a man arranged to have himself made the victim of a highway
robbery in order to claim a Government reward, the prisoners were
rightly acquitted ;
and not through fear of any violence. 3
the
for the prosecutor had parted with his property willingly
i R. v. La-pier (1781), 2 East, P. C. 557, 708 ; 1 Leach, 320.
2 See R. v. Farrell (1787), 1 Leach, 322, n. (b).
8 R. v. MacDaniel (1756), 19 St. Tr. 745.