GRANVILLE SHARP J.A.: Whatever may be the fact as to the purchase of cloth, it is perfectly clear that the story told by the first appellant in the presence of the second appellant as to the availability of money in her house was false. It was this falsehood that induced the victim of the appellants to consent to hand over to the first appellant the sum of £600 Bray’s consent was therefore void, for Section 16 (2) of the Criminal Code expressly provides: “A consent shall be void if it is obtained by means of deceit or duress.” Clearly therefore, in our opinion, at the moment when the woman took the money, she took it without the consent of the owner, and dishonestly appropriated it. The offence was one of stealing.
The District Magistrate, however, is recorded as finding that these two appellants were “not guilty of stealing, but guilty of fraud by false pretences”. In this the learned Judge of the Divisional Court supported him.
(His lordship read Section 39 of the Criminal Code and Se…