## Facts

- David Thurborn found a £10 bank note lying on a road.
- The note had no markings or other apparent means of identifying the owner.
- When he picked up the note, Thurborn intended to appropriate it for his own use and believed the owner could not be discovered.
- The next day, Thurborn learned the note belonged to Samuel Brown.
- Thurborn cashed the note and kept the proceeds instead of returning it.
- Thurborn was indicted for larceny of the bank note, convicted by a jury, and the trial judge reserved a question of law on whether the taking was felonious.

## Issues

1. Whether a finder commits larceny by taking lost property with intent to keep it when, at the time of taking, he honestly and reasonably believes the owner cannot be found.
2. Whether later learning the owner’s identity and converting the property can make the initial taking larcenous.

## Decision

- The court held the conduct was not larceny on these facts.
- Larceny requires a trespassory taking accompanied by felonious intent at the moment of taking.
- If the finder honestly and reasonably believes, when taking lost goods, that the owner cannot be found, the initial taking is not trespassory for larceny purposes.
- Subsequent conversion after learning the true owner does not retroactively supply the trespass element required for larceny.
- Thurborn’s conviction was set aside.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law larceny requires a trespassory caption and carrying away with felonious intent existing at the time of caption.
- A finder of goods that are actually lost (or reasonably believed to be lost) does not commit larceny by appropriating them if, at the time of taking, he honestly and reasonably believes the owner cannot be located.
- If the finder takes lost goods intending to appropriate them while reasonably believing the owner can be found, the taking is larceny.
- Later dishonest retention or conversion generally cannot “relate back” to transform a non-trespassory acquisition into larceny.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the larceny conviction because Thurborn’s liability depended on his state of mind at the moment he took the lost note, and his honest, reasonable belief that the owner was not discoverable meant the taking lacked the trespassory element required for larceny even though he later converted the note after learning its owner.


Regina v. Thurborn, 169 Eng. Rep. 293 (C.C.C.R. 1848)