## Facts

- Abraham Chisser entered Anne Charteris’s shop and asked to see two cravats.
- Charteris (or her servant) voluntarily placed the cravats in Chisser’s hands for inspection during price discussions.
- Charteris stated a price of 7 shillings; Chisser counteroffered 3 shillings.
- Before any agreement on price or completion of a sale, Chisser immediately ran out of the shop with the cravats, asserting he would pay only his offered price.
- Chisser was apprehended and prosecuted; the jury found the underlying facts true, and the court was asked to determine whether the conduct constituted larceny.

## Issues

1. Whether a customer who receives goods for inspection during ongoing price negotiations commits common-law larceny by running off with the goods before any contract of sale is completed.
2. Whether the initial voluntary handover for inspection transfers legal possession to the customer or leaves legal possession with the shopkeeper (custody versus possession).
3. Whether flight with the merchandise permits an inference of felonious intent sufficient for larceny.

## Decision

- The Court of King’s Bench held that Chisser’s conduct constituted felony larceny.
- The court treated the shopkeeper as retaining legal (constructive) possession because no sale had been completed.
- Chisser’s sudden departure with the goods exceeded the limited permission for inspection, making the taking trespassory.
- The act of running off with the goods was evidence of felonious intent.

## Legal Principles

- For common-law larceny, a trespassory taking from another’s possession is required; physical control given for a limited purpose may constitute mere custody rather than legal possession.
- When goods are handed to a prospective buyer solely for inspection during negotiations, the owner retains constructive possession until a contract of sale is completed (including agreement on price and transfer on payment terms).
- If the recipient departs with the goods before completion of the transaction and without the owner’s consent, the act is treated as a trespassory taking and carrying away, satisfying larceny’s act element.
- Flight with the merchandise during negotiations supports an inference of felonious intent to steal.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that a shopkeeper who hands goods to a customer for inspection does not relinquish legal possession during unfinished bargaining; if the customer runs off with the goods before any sale is completed, the taking is trespassory and constitutes larceny, with felonious intent inferable from the conduct.


Rex v. Chisser, 83 Eng. Rep. 142 (K.B. 1678)