Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 8.djvu/338

322 322 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. the owner; as, for instance, in case of a threat to tear or burn down the house in which a man Hves.^ It is often important to notice just the extent and the nature of the consent given. Consent that one may take a thing in his hand is not necessarily consent that he may take possession of it. Thus, to use the classical illustration, where plate is put before a guest at an inn, there is no consent that he may take possession of it; and if he does so, it is an act of trespass.^ In the same way it is to be observed that mere acquiescence in the act of a thief by the owner of goods taken, for the purpose of detecting the crime, is not consent that the goods shall be taken. It is at most a consent to afford a chance for a tortious taking.^ If, however, the owner takes any step to induce the act, it is impossible to say that the act is not done with his consent* It is to be borne in mind that a conditional consent that some- thing may be done can be given in advance. If, then, the condi- tion is fulfilled, the consent is valid ; if, however, the condition is not exactly carried out, it cannot be relied upon. Thus, where a box is placed in a public place containing a printed notice that any one who drops a nickel in the slot shall have a cigar, the consent that a cigar may be taken is conditional upon dropping the nickel, and if the cigar is taken without this being done, it is an act of trespass.^ This principle may sometimes be relied upon to nega- 1 Rex V. Astley, 2 East, P. C. 729. This rule was relaxed in England for a while, in case of a threat to accuse one of sodomitical practices ; money extorted by such a threat was held to be parted with against the consent of the owner, the threatened injury to the character taking the place of force to the person. This departure from principle was no doubt due to the extraordinary apprehension with which this disgust- ing crime was then regarded in England (it was called " the greatest of all crimes '' by Ashhurst, J., in Hickman's case) ; and it did not extend to similar threats not con- nected with this particular crime (Rex v. Knewland, 2 Leach, 721). Those who care to pursue the unprofitable subject will find material for the study in Rex v. Donolly, 2 East, P. C. 715; I Leach, 193; Rex v. Hickman, i Leach, 278; Rex z/. Jackson, I East, P. C. Add.; Reane's Case, 2 East, P. C. 734; Egerton's Case, Russ. & Ry. 375 ; Fuller's Case, Russ. & Ry. 408. 2 Compare such cases as Rex z/. Chissers, T. Raym. 275; Cas. Crim. Law, 515; Reg. V. Slowly, 12 Cox, C. C. 269; Cas. Crim. Law, 516; Com. z/. O'Malley, 97 Mass. 584; Cas. Crim. Law, 518; Com. v. Lannan, 153 Mass. 287 ; Cas. Crim. Law, 521. 8 Norden's Case, cited in McDaniel's Case, Fost. C. L. 121 ; Cas. Crim. Law, 152; Eggington's Case, 2 East, P. C. 666; Cas. Crim. Law, 154; State z/. Anone, 2 N. & Mel. 27 ; State v. Hayes, 105 Mo. 76. 6 Reg. V. Hands, 16 Cox, C. C. 188; Cas. Crim. Law, 614. So where a box of matches is placed on a counter for the use of customers (Mitchum v. State, 45 Ala. 29 ; Cas. Crim. Law, 616). I have already suggested this as a possible explanation of the
 * McDaniel's Case, supra.