## Facts

- Joseph Bazeley was the principal teller at a London bank, authorized to receive and pay money, notes, and bills at the counter.
- A customer, William Gilbert (through his servant), brought cash and bank-notes to deposit into Gilbert’s bank account.
- Bazeley received the deposit and caused Gilbert’s account to be credited on the bank’s books.
- At the time of receipt, Bazeley diverted one bank-note for himself, placing it in his pocket and later using it for personal purposes.
- The diverted bank-note never reached the bank’s till/drawer and was not reduced into the bank’s actual or constructive possession.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee who fraudulently converts a bank-note received from a customer for deposit—before the employer bank obtains actual or constructive possession—commits common-law larceny.
2. Whether, absent the employer’s possession at the moment of conversion, the trespassory-taking element of larceny is satisfied.

## Decision

- Bazeley was indicted for larceny and found guilty by a jury at trial.
- The legal question was reserved for the judges.
- The judges concluded the conduct did not amount to common-law larceny because the bank-note was not in the bank’s possession when Bazeley converted it.
- The conviction for larceny could not stand on those facts.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law larceny requires a trespassory taking and carrying away from the possession (actual or constructive) of another.
- If property is received by a servant or agent with authority to receive it, and the principal has not yet obtained actual or constructive possession, the agent’s immediate diversion is not a taking from the principal’s possession.
- A principal’s mere right to possess or title, without possession at the time of conversion, is insufficient to establish larceny.
- Fraudulent conversion of property initially received by entrustment falls outside larceny’s possession-based elements and historically required separate statutory treatment (later addressed by embezzlement statutes).

## Conclusion

The case held that a bank teller’s diversion of a depositor’s note at the point of receipt was not common-law larceny because the bank had not yet obtained possession and thus suffered no trespassory taking; the decision highlighted a gap in theft law concerning employee misappropriation of entrusted funds and helped prompt legislative creation of embezzlement offenses.


Rex v. Bazeley, 2 Leach 835, 168 Eng. Rep. 517 (K.B. 1799)