Guzzler Law Case Study

After identifying the problem with the Guzzler case and reading many different cases similar to this problem at hand I have found that there is one specific case that best fits the facts of the problem is New Jersey v. Andrew J. Leicht, as well as other good points about the case I found cited within this document. Mr. Guzzler, a trucker for Allied Trucking Company was supposed to deliver Duff Beer, but instead of delivering the beer he drank some of the beer and sold the rest of it. The problem at hand is that Mr. Guzzler claims that he cannot be charged with Larceny from Allied Trucking Company, because they are not the rightful owners of the Duff Beer. Due to the fact that any faulty indictment must be dismissed, Mr. Guzzler now moves to dismiss the action against him. The current New Jersey Law states that in prosecution for larceny of goods from a carrier's truck, legal ownership in the carrier was not an essential element of the crime charged. An essential element of larceny is not that the property belong to or is owned by a specific person or entity but rather that t is the property of someone other than the thief. An indictment of larceny is not insufficient even if the owner of the goods is unknown and that larceny may even lie when one thief steals from another. As long as the beer didn't belong rightfully to the defendant than it is larceny. The essential element of larceny is not that the property belonged to or was owned by a specific person or entity, but rather that it was the property other than the thief. In the case NJ v. Leicht, Andrew Leicht, the defendant, was delivering sixty bags of sugar for Morris Trucking Company and had never delivered them instead he stole all sixty of them. Leicht much like Guzzler, claims that the trucking company he worked for was not the rightful owner of the goods so he had could not be brought up on larceny charges by the specific trucking companies. This case conceded that Morris Trucking,