## Facts

- Samuel Finch, a livery-stable keeper, owned a black horse kept at his stable.
- Pear hired Finch’s horse for a same-day ride to Sutton in Surrey, promising to return by about 8 p.m.
- Pear gave Finch a purported residence in “King-street,” which later proved false.
- Before the hire period expired, Pear sold the horse to an innocent third party, William Hollist.
- Pear did not take the claimed journey and never returned the horse.
- The jury found that Pear hired the horse with a fraudulent intent existing at the time of hiring—specifically, an intent to sell it immediately.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant commits felony larceny by hiring a horse under false pretenses of temporary use while intending, at the moment of hiring, to sell it.
2. Whether delivery “for hire” transfers lawful possession such that a later sale is only a breach of trust, or whether fraudulent intent at the time of delivery prevents lawful possession and makes the taking larceny.

## Decision

- The court upheld the larceny conviction.
- Because Pear intended at the moment of hiring to sell the horse, the delivery for hire did not effect a lawful change in possession.
- Pear’s taking and conversion therefore constituted felony larceny (later described as larceny by trick), not merely a civil breach of trust or a different deception offense.
- The court approved submitting to the jury the factual question of Pear’s original intent, which could be proved by circumstances such as the false address and immediate sale.

## Legal Principles

- Where an owner delivers property for a limited purpose and the recipient, at the time of delivery, intends to defeat that purpose and permanently deprive the owner, the recipient’s acquisition is larceny because fraud prevents lawful possession from passing.
- The controlling inquiry distinguishing larceny from non-felonious misappropriation is the defendant’s intent at the time the property is obtained.
- If the recipient honestly intended to return the property when obtained and only later decided to convert it, the initial possession is lawful and the conduct is not larceny.
- Fraudulent intent at transfer may be established by circumstantial evidence, including false identifying information and immediate disposal inconsistent with the stated purpose.

## Conclusion

The case establishes that hiring property by deception with a preexisting intent to sell it is larceny by trick, because the owner is induced to part with custody for a limited use rather than lawful possession authorizing disposal.


Rex v. Pear, 1 Leach 212, 168 Eng. Rep. 208 (Cent. Crim. Ct. 1779)