Moss v Hancock

Money.

John Vianny Ayebare

Rachel Adiro.
Brief Facts

A prisoner, who was a servant of the respondent was convicted of

having stolen from his master a five pound gold piece given to him
(the master) as a gift. The gold piece had been kept in a cabinet and
had never been in circulation.
The prisoner, after stealing the piece, exchanged it with the
appellants son for five sovereigns. Upon the conviction, the justices
found that the piece stolen by the prisoner was the property of the
respondent and made an order for its restitution, proceeding under
the Larceny Act, 1861.
Issue:

Whether the thief spent the gold piece as money or as a good.

At stake?

The Larceney Act handling of restitution in regard to:

1. Goods
2. Money.
Decision.
Darling, J: Money is that which passes freely from hand to hand
throughout community in final discharge of debts and full payment
for commodities being accepted equally without reference to the
character or credit of the person who offers it and without the
intention of the person who receives it to consume it or apply it to
any other use than in turn to tender it to others in discharge of debts
or payment of commodities.

The Gold piece was thus passed as a subject of sale and not passed as
money since the value received was even less than the nominal value
of the piece.
Conclusion

From this decision,

1. Money has to be generally acceptable.

2. Money can be virtual eg mobile money, crypto currency etc.
3. Money is specifically used for medium of exchange and not any
other purpose.