Odger's English Common Law

352 LARCENY.
Next, as to the nature of the criminal intention, which must
exist in the prisoner's mind at the time he takes or receives
the goods. He must wrongfully intend to deprive the owner
permanently of all benefits of his ownership. If the goods
were taken thoughtlessly or by way of joke or in mere
mischief, or through an honest mistake, or under any " claim
of right made in good faith," x there is no mens rea and there-
fore no felony.
Thus, it is an ancient custom to allow gleaners to gather up what corn,
Ac, is left lying on the ground after the machines of the owner have taken
the bulk of the crop ;
and they do so under a claim of right by old custom.
So, too, it is no larceny for a sheriff to distrain on goods which he believes
to belong to a judgment debtor, even though it be subsequently proved
that the goods taken are not the property of the debtor, but of some
innocent third party. If a claim of right be suggested, it is material to
inquire whether the goods were taken surreptitiously. If the prisoner,
when charged with stealing the goods, boldly admitted taking them, but
claimed a right to do so, the jury will probably infer that he at any rate
thought he was justified in taking them. But if the prisoner took them
by stealth and afterwards denied taking them at all, and then at the trial
set up the defence of a claim of right, the jury may infer that they were
taken with a felonious intent. In such a case clear proof of subsequent
dishonesty would be evidence from which dishonesty ab initio might be
inferred.
Again, a mere intention to take away the owner's possession
from him temporarily will not suffice. There must be an
intention to deal with the thing stolen in a manner wholly
inconsistent with the owner's right of property in it—either
by appropriating it or destroying it. If, however, this
felonious intent exists, the motive does not matter. The act
need not be done for gain. 2
Thus, to borrow a boat to escape in—even without the owner's leave—or
to borrow a key in order to open a safe, and delay in returning it, would
not constitute larceny. And where the finder of an article delays returning
it to the owner in the hope that a reward will be offered, he commits no
•crime.
So where a glove stitcher takes back out of the stock gloves which she
had previously stitched and been paid for, intending to bring them back
in a few days and be paid for them over again, she does not commit larceny
of the gloves.
1 Larceny Act, 1916, s. 1 (1).
a See B. v. Cabbage (1815), K. & E. 292.