Conviction for Stealing from warehouse-No evidence showing subject matter of charge viz: Shirts, were missing from any bale in the warehouse-Evidence that a bale of similar ,shirts had been tampered with- Well established that the fact, of ,Stealing  may be proved by all the Circumstances of the case-­It is not a rule of law that the corpus delicti must be expressly proved.

Held: That the evidence against the appellant was so overwhelming that the appeal must be dismissed.

Cases cited:-

R. v. Dredge, 1 Cox 235;

R. v. Hooper, 175 Eug. Rep. 637;

R. v. Burton, 23 L.J.·M.C. 52;

R. v. Sbarra, 13 Cr. App. Rep. 118;

R. v. Fuschillo, 27 Cr. App. Rep. 193;

R. v Boateng (unreported) decided .in this Court on the 10th June, 1941).

W. H. Irwin for Respondent.

       C. P. F. Awoonor-Renner for Appellant.                                                             

       The following foint judgment was delivered: -                                                       

KINGDON, C.J., NIGERIA, PE'fRIDES, C .J., GOLD COAST AND M'CARTHY, J.

 

In this case the appellant was convicted by the District Magistrate, Accra, of stealing two shirts from the King's ware­house. The only difficulty in the case is that the prosecution did not give evidence to prove that the two shirts which formed the subject matter of the charge were found to be missing from any bale of goods in the King's Warehouse, though evidence was given that a bale of similar shirts had been tampered with. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the contents of the bale were not checked, so that evidence could have been led to prove the loss. But it is well established that the fact of steal­ing may' be proved by all the circumstances of the case and it is not a rule of law that the corpus delicti must be expressly proved. pg 180

      It is always a question for the Jury or other Judge of the facts (R. v. Dredge, 1 Cox 235; R. v. Hooper, 175 Eng. Rep. 637; R. v. Burton, 23 L.J.M.C. 52; R. 'v. Sbarra, 13 Cr . .App. Rep. 118; R. v. F'uschillo, 27 Cr. App. Rep. 193; R. v. Boateng (unreported) decided in this Court on the 10th June, 1941).

In this case the evidence ag-ainst the appellant is so over­whelming that, in spite of the failure of the prosecution to lead evidence as to the corpu.~ delicti, we are of opinion that the conviction must be allowed to stand.

The appeal is dismissed.