Slattery v The King - [1905] HCA 66

SLATTERY

THE KING

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Larceny by bailee-Bailment-Receipt of money as agent-Failure to account for

balance-Frandulent appropriation by agent-Crimes Act (N.S. W.), (No. 40 of 1900), sec. 125,* SYDNEY,

An agent having general authority under power of attorney to act for his June 26, 27,

principal, and, amongst other things, to collect rents from time to time, as they became due, with instructions to make certain payments on behalf of his principal, out of the moneys received, and account for the balance every three months, continued for a period of several years to receive the rents and to make payments from time to time on his principal's behalf, but neglected altogether to comply with the instructions as to accounting, and fraudulently appropriated to his own use the balances which should have been paid over to his principal.

Held, that he was not liable under sec. 123 of the Crimes Act 1900, to be convicted of larceny as a bailee of the sum of money representing the balance due from him to his principal.

R. v. Brodie, 15 N.S.W. L.R., 436; R. v. Amora, 18 N.S.W. L.R., 114: and R. v. Pritchard, (1901) 1 S.R, (N.S.W.), 364, distinguished.

Decision of the Supreme Court, R. v. Slattery, (1905) 5.S.R. (N.S.W.),294 22 N.S.W. W.N., 92, reversed. *Sec. 125 of the Crimes Act (No. 40

to be guilty of larceny, and may becom- of 1900), is as follows -

victed thereof upon an indictment for 125. Whosoever being a bailee of

simple larceny. any property fraudulently takes or con-

" The accused shall be taken to be a verts the same, or any part thereof or

bailee within the meaning of this sec any property into or for which it has

tion, although he may not have con been converted or exchanged, to his

tracted to restore, or deliver, thespecific own use, or the use of any person other

property received by him, or may only than the owner thereof, although he

have contracted to restore, or deliver, does not break bulk, or otherwise

the property specifically." determine the bailment, shall be deemed

2 CLR 547

APPEAL from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South H. C. Wales, on a special case stated by Pring J.

The following statement of the facts is taken from the special case, and the learned Judge's notes of the evidence, which were annexed to the special case.

The appellant was convicted before Pring J., at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, on a charge of stealing £6,958 18s. 10d., the property of Mrs. Scanlon.

The appellant had been employed by her as her agent to collect the rents of certain house property belonging to her. Accounts between them appear to have been satisfactorily settled up to October, 1901. In April or May, 1902, Mrs. Scanlon left Sydney for Europe, and did not return until January, 1905. Before leaving she executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Slattery v The King

Details

AGLC: Slattery v The King [1905] HCA 66
Case: [1905] HCA 66
Decision Date: 28 June 1905

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Slattery, was convicted of larceny by a bailee under section 125 of the Crimes Act (N.S.W.). The prosecution alleged that Slattery, acting as an agent, received money on behalf of another and, by failing to account for a balance, fraudulently appropriated it. The case was heard by Griffith C.J., Barton and O'Connor JJ.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant's conduct constituted larceny by a bailee within the meaning of section 125 of the Crimes Act. This required the Court to consider the nature of the bailment relationship in the context of an agent receiving money and the elements of fraudulent appropriation.

The Court held that the relationship between the appellant and the person on whose behalf he received the money was one of bailment. The appellant had received the money as a bailee, with the obligation to account for it. His failure to do so and the subsequent appropriation of the balance were found to be evidence of a fraudulent intent, satisfying the elements of larceny by a bailee. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders