NOVEL POINT

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 15, 18 July 1923, Page 6

NOVEL POINT

RAISED BEFORE MAGISTRATE

CAN PERSON STEAL OWN PROPERTY?

Can a person be charged with stealing his own property? This was the question raised at the Magistrate's Court today during, the hearing of a charge of theft against a man named Charles O'Loughlin. It was alleged that O'Loughlin had removed his own motorcar from outside the garage of Harold Victor Wood, with whom it had been left for the purpose of being repaired. Chief-Detective Kemp said that on 11th June/the accused's car was taken to Wood's garage in Adelaide road, and repairs to the value of £5 11s lid were ..effected. On 16th June, owing to pressure of business, the car was put outside the garage, and <it 12.30 o'clock that day Q;Loughlin and a boy came along and took the. car away. Wood had a lien on the car, and was the owner for the time being. Mr: E. Page, S.M.: "Do you say these facts disclose an offence? Can you show any authority?" The Chief-Detective said that the case of Rex v. Cox, decided by Mr. Justice Salmond, was on all fours with the present case. That was a case of false pretences. In that case the accused put his car. into a garage to have repairs carried out, and before he had settled up the account he had, by means of a false pretence, sec ired possession of it. ■In his judgment, Mr. Justice Salmond said that a charge of larceny under similar circumstances could succeed. In the present case, said Mr- Kemp, the charge was laid under section. 245 of the Crimes Act. T

Mr. \V. Perry, who appeared for the accused,. said that in the case of R-ex v.. Cox the accused had been rightly convicted of false pretences. The present charge was laid under section 245 of the Act, which said that theft might be committed by the owner of anything capable of being stolen against a person having a special property or interest therein. What property or interest did the garage proprietor have in the car in the present case? He certainly had a claim against the accused for £5 lls lid for .-repairs/but that did not'amount to a property. Could it ever be said that it amounted to an interest? The car was outside the garage when it was taken away. It was submitted, said Mr. Perry, that the garage proprietor had no property in the car. He may have had an interest for £5 ll s lid, but that was all.

After the evidence for the Crown had been given, Mr. Perry urged that there was no case to answer. It/seemed to be stretching the Crimes Act to bring the accused to the Court on a charge ot theft when the matter couid have been settled by a civil proceeding. The Magistrate - said that he did. not think there- was sufficient evidence to warrant his sending the case,, which was rather an unusual one, • to the Supreme Court. In a case of theft there must bo reasonably clear evidence of intention to.steal the car. The caso was dismissed.