Odger's English Common Law

LARCENY BY A TRICK. 349
the prosecutor, if that contract was a mere pretence or fraud
upon the prosecutor— part of a scheme for feloniously getting
possession of his property; for so obtaining the goods is
larceny by a trick. 1
Where the prisoner tries a hc*se which he is pretending to buy, or
borrows one to ride for a couple of hours, and does not return it, he
commits larceny by a trick. It will be otherwise, if the jury are satisfied
that he always meant to return it sooner or later.
Thus, in R. v. Bicckmaster 2 the prosecutor made a bet upon a horse-
race with the prisoner and left the amount of the bet with him as a deposit.
The prisoner lost the bet; and when subsequently asked to pay he denied
that he had made the bet. The Court for Crown Cases Eeserved held that
there was evidence to go to the jury that the prisoner had fraudulently
received the money, never intending to repay it in any event, and was,
therefore, rightly convicted of larceny by a trick.
In R. v. McKale, 3 A. and B. together went into the shop of the
prosecutrix. A. put down sixpence in silver and sixpence in copper, and
asked the prosecutrix for a shilling in change. She took a shilling from
the till and placed it on the counter beside the sixpence in silver and the
sixpence in copper. A. then said that she might as well give him a florin
and take it all. She took a florin from the till and placed it on the
counter, expecting to receive two shillings of A.'s money in exchange.
Just then B. distracted her attention by asking the price of some article,
and A. went away with the florin. It was held that A. was guilty of
larceny, for the prosecutrix never intended to part with her property in the
florin until she had received two shillings of the prisoner's money in
exchange for it.
Larceny by a Bailee,
The rule that no larceny could be committed where the
•owner of the goods consents to their receipt by the prisoner
created difficulties in cases of bailment. 4
If the bailee appro-
priated to his own use the goods entrusted to him by the
bailor, he was not guilty of larceny at common law ; for the
legal possession was in the bailee, and he had acquired it
innocently. 5
If, however, a bailee dishonestly severed into
v. Edmundson (1913), 8 Cr. App. K. 107.
B. 1 B. v. Brandey (1861), L. & C. 21 :
2 (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 182.
a
(1868), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 126.
4 'Ihe nature of a bailment has been already defined : ante, p. 27.
5 But if he had fraudulently induced the owner to entrust him with the goods in
'Order that he might steal them, he would, as we have just seen, be guilty of larceny
•by a trick.