John Francis Maclarnyoh & Anor V. The Queen (1954)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Criminal Law and Procedure—Stealing—Value of specific items received—Defence of possible innocent mistake or of general deficiency.
Facts
The appellants were tried with X and Y (who did not appeal). X ought to have entered, but did not enter, two items of goods as supplied to the first appellant, who was in charge of a store; Y also omitted to enter two items of goods supplied to the second appellant, who was in charge of another store. X and Y entered the goods as specific entries in the transit column of their books, that is to say, as unallocated, with the result that the appellants had the goods (which fact they admitted) but were not debited with them. Therefore each appellant’s own account at the end of the month, if correct, ought to have shown a surplus equal to the value of the two items of goods received by him; but neither appellant showed a surplus in his month’s account, and they were convicted of stealing respectively the amounts represented by the value of the two relevant items in the case of each. In the appeal the argument was (a) that the shortage in either appellant’s account might have been due to some possible innocent error in accounting, and (b) if there was a deficiency, it was a general deficiency which could not sustain a charge.
Held
(1) Once the shortage, and the means whereby it was effected, namely by the false entries made by X and Y, were established, it was incumbent on either appellant to lead evidence to establish that the shortage was due to some other cause, and neither appellant could rely on mere conjecture.
Each of the appellants had admittedly received two items of goods with which he was not debited; each ought to have had a surplus in goods or cash to that extent; but no surplus existed, and the irresistible inference was that taking those goods without a debit enabled each appellant to steal from the cash received from other sales.
(2) On the facts this was not a case of general deficiency but thefts relating
to specific transactions. As, however, it was not possible to show whether either
appellant stole the full amount representing the value of the relevant two items
of goods on one day or piecemeal over a number of days, it was correct to charge
each appellant with stealing the gross sums of the relevant two items in his case.
Appeal dismissed.
