Slattery v R [1905] HCA 66

Slattery v R [1905] HCA 66

The relationship between Mrs. Scanlon and the accused was that of principal and agent, not bailor and bailee. The money was received in circumstances where it became a mixed fund and only a balance was to be accounted for. Thus, there was no original bailment of specific property and no larceny by bailee under section 125. The statute does not extend to all cases of agents failing to account for money, and conviction cannot stand.

Parties
Appellant: Slattery; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 June 1905
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.
Legal Topics
Larceny by Bailee, Interpretation of Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S125, Agency and Bailment
Criminal Law Larceny by Bailee Interpretation of Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S125 Agency and Bailment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Slattery

Appellant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agent who receives money on behalf of a principal and fails to account is guilty of larceny as a bailee under Crimes Act (NSW) s125
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'bailee' and substituted property under s125

Ratio Decidendi

The relationship between Mrs. Scanlon and the accused was that of principal and agent, not bailor and bailee. The money was received in circumstances where it became a mixed fund and only a balance was to be accounted for. Thus, there was no original bailment of specific property and no larceny by bailee under section 125. The statute does not extend to all cases of agents failing to account for money, and conviction cannot stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.

Orders

  • Order of Supreme Court affirming conviction discharged
  • Conviction quashed