Odger's English Common Law

THE MIND OF THE PRISONER. 35
some future date when he might happen to be in funds, then lie is guilty of
larceny.
We have dealt with the state of mind of the owner of the-
goods. The state of mind of the prisoner is also most
material. He must at the moment of taking possession of
the goods have in his mind the intention of depriving the
owner permanently of all benefits of his ownership. He
must at that time intend to appropriate the goods to his own
use, or to the use of some person other than the owner. 1
'
' The innocent receipt of a chattel and its subsequent fraudu-
lent appropriation do not constitute larceny. ... To justify
a conviction for larceny the receipt and appropriation must be
contemporaneous." 2 A change in a man's mind ex post facto-
cannot " render an honest taking larceny." s
M. received a letter containing a cheque. The letter was addressed,,
and the cheque was pnyable, to another person of the same name as M.
M. received the letter innocently, but on discovering the mistake converted
the cheque to his own use. This is not larceny ; for M. had no criminal
intent at the time when he took possession of the letter. 4
Flowers whs in the employ of a firm of shoe manufacturers at Leicester,.
whose custom it was to send to each workman the amount of his wages in
a sealed bag with the amount and the name of the workman written outside..
Flowers and another workman called Jinks complained to the clerk that the
amount paid them was short. Jinks handed back his bag unopened to
the clerk. Flowers, who had already opened his bag and taken out its
contents, handed in his bag torn and empty. The clerk consulted the
cashier and discovered that Flowers was entitled to 3d. more than he had
received • he brought him this 3d. and handed him at the same time by-
mistake Jinks' full bag instead of Flowers' empty bag. Flowers immedialely-
went away. Yet the jury found that he did not know that the bag which
the clerk handed to him did not belong to him at the time he received it
from the clerk, but that, having received the bag and its contents innocently,.
he afterwards fraudulently appropriated them to his own use. The Court
for Crown Cases Reserved quashed the conviction. 5
1 This is called in the old books the animmfurawii. And now see the Larceny Act,.
19 6
2 >erLord Coleridge, C. J., in R. v. Flowers (1886), 16 Q. B. D. at p. 646.
s Per Alderson, B., in B- v. Preston (1851), 2 Den. C. C. at p. 360.
jb T Mucklow (1827), 1 Moo. C. C. 160 ; R. r. Davies (1856), Dearsl. 640,
* R. v.' Flowers (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 613 ; cf. R. v. Ashwell (18t5), 16 Q. li. U. 190,
ante, p. 347.
1