Odger's English Common Law

POSSESSION. 343
ownership. But a mere right to possession is not—in prose-
cutions for larceny, at all events—equivalent to possession.
Possession, as we have seen, 1
is mainly a matter of personal
control It is a physical fact, and an obvious one; it is
wholly distinct from ownership, which is often a difficult
question of law. A man is in possession of a chattel when-
ever he has full and uncontrolled physical dominion over it.
He is in possession of any chattel which is in the custody of
his family or servants. If he goes away with his family and
servants and leaves his furniture in his empty house, he would
still be held to be in possession of that furniture, if such absence
was only temporary, or if he could return and re-enter the
house whenever he chose. But the moment any one else enters
the house and carries off any article of furniture without his
consent, his possession is at an end ; for two persons cannot
be in possession of the same property at the same time, unless
they be partners or joint occupiers.
Thus, spoons or boots which, a servant cleans in his master's house are
all the time in the master's possession. If he steals them, it is larceny by
a servant ; if a third person steals them, they should be described in the
indictment as the property of the master, and not of the servant. 2
AgaiD, if a thief goes to a restaurant, and pockets the knife, fork or
Bpoon, which is laid before him, he commits larceny; for the restaurant
keeper still had possession of it till the thief pocketed it. So, too, if A.
walks with B. in order to carry his bag to the station, and runs away with
it, he commits larceny ; for the bag was still in B.'s possession while they
were walking together.
A lady, wishing to get a railway ticket and finding the booking-office
very crowded, asked a man who was nearer to the pay-place than she was
to get a ticket for her, and handed him the money. He accepced it,
intending to steal it, and immediately ran away with it. It was held that
he was guilty of larceny at common law ; for the lady being present
retained the.d'omiuion and possession of the money in point of law after
she had handed it to him. 3
Again, if the owner of a chattel delivers it to an indepen-
dent person—not a servant of his—with whom he has a
contract relating to that chattel of such a kind that the other
party to the contract is entitled to withhold possession of it
i Ante p. 19.
• See R. v. Pearson (2) (1906), 72 J. P. 451.
» R. v. Thompson (1862), 32 L. J. M. C. 53.