People (Attorney General) v Heald

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1954
• Date: 01 January 1954
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal

Court of Criminal Appeal.

The People (Attorney General) v. Heald

THE PEOPLE (at the suit of the Attorney General)

and

CISSIE PATRICIA HEALD (1)

Criminal law - Fraudulent conversion - Matron of convalescent home - Money received for special purpose expressly prohibited by superior - Whether money received "for or on behalf of" superiors - Larceny charge in indictment - Acquittal - Competent for jury to convict on charge of obtaining money by false pretences - Autrefois acquit - Larceny Act, 1916 (6 & 7 Geo.5), s. 20, sub-s. 1 (iv) (b).

Criminal Appeal.

The applicant, Cissie Patricia Heald, was tried and convicted in the Circuit Criminal Court on a charge of fraudulent conversion contrary to the provisions of s. 20 of the Larceny Act, 1916. She applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal against the said conviction and sentence.

The facts have been summarised in the head-note and appear fully in the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, delivered by Maguire C.J. (post).

The applicant was matron of a convalescent home run by an order of nuns and had authority to collect and expend fees and charges from patients in her discretion, being obliged only to pay to the nuns a fixed weekly sum per patient. She entered into an arrangement to receive into the home for the remainder of their lives two elderly ladies on their paying to her the sum of £2,000, and, on receiving the money, she placed it to the credit of her own personal account in the Bank, concealing from the nuns the fact that she had entered into the arrangement and that she had received the said sum. The nuns had previously discontinued their former practice of receiving patients on a lump sum basis. On being charged in the Circuit Criminal Court with, inter alia, 1, larceny and 2, fraudulent conversion contrary to s. 20, sub-s. 1 (iv) (b) of the Larceny Act, 1916, she was acquitted of larceny and was convicted on the charge of fraudulent conversion. On an application by the applicant to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal it was

Held 1, That in order to sustain the conviction it must be shown that the applicant had authority to receive the said sum of money on behalf of the nuns, and the onus of proving such authority lay upon the prosecution.

Held 2, That as there was a count of larceny in the indictment, and the jury could have been told that they could convict of obtaining money by false pretences on that count, the applicant had been in peril on a charge of false pretences and her acquittal on the charge of larceny precluded her from being now tried upon...