R. V. ASHWELL.
(1885)
Ashwell was put on trial for theft of a sovereign, which belonged to Keogh. The two met at a public house, where Ashwell asked Keogh for a shilling and promised to repay it the following day. Keogh agreed and mistakenly lent Ashwell a sovereign instead.
Ashwell used part of the sovereign at another public house. The next morning, when Keogh went to Ashwell's house to inform him of the error, Ashwell denied having received the sovereign.
However, he later admitted to having it and spending half of it. He refused to return the money to Keogh, arguing that he had only asked for a shilling.
J. Cave stated that Ashwell is solely responsible for the shilling as he agreed to take responsibility for it. Typically, a carrier is not held liable for the loss of a valuable item if they previously stated they are not responsible for such items.
In this case, Ashwell did not indicate that he was willing to take on the responsibility of possessing the coin, thus he did not assume the obligations of borrowing a sovereign.
However, Ashwell fraudulently converted the sovereign to his own use after acquiring it. As per the principle of 'E. v. Middleton', he is guilty of larceny at common law.
According to Chief Justice Lord Coleridge, the defendant's act of taking the sovereign for himself upon receipt was a clear case of larceny. The judges on the bench had disparate opinions on the matter of fact. He argues that the sovereign in question was discovered and stolen simultaneously.
If a man mistakenly moves a lamb belonging to someone else along with his flock while transferring them from a field, and later sells that lamb without the owner's consent upon realizing the error, he can be charged with larceny. This is due to the fact that he trespassed by selling the animal without permission, thereby turning it into a criminal act.
It's important to note that, at least, the post-1916 law of larceny involves more than just gaining possession.
The Larceny Act of 1916 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Its purpose was to consolidate and simplify the law relating to larceny triable on indictment and to kindred offenses.
The definition of larceny for the purposes of the Act was "a person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith; takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen, with the intent at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof. Provided that a person may be guilty of stealing any such thing notwithstanding that he has lawful possession thereof, if, being a bailee or part owner thereof, he fraudulently converts the same to his own use or the use of any person other than the owner.”