The learned trial judge in his charge to the jury said: "Now, so far as this charge of stealing is concerned, gentlemen, the law provides that although two people may own property jointly, such as money in the bank, as in this case, nevertheless, it is possible for one joint owner to steal the money of another joint owner and that is the charge in this case. Now, a charge of stealing means this, in this particular case, that the accused without the consent of the co-owner, Mrs. Webster, wrongfully and without any claim of right made in good faith, took possession of these joint moneys in the bank, with intent to deprive Mrs. Webster, the other joint owner, permanently of such moneys and when you say he did this wrongfully, in this case the wrongful act consists - or the wrongful intent consists in his intending to appropriate the moneys to his own use, of course, without her consent." Later, his Honour said: "But it is this expression, "without a claim of right, made in good faith", that may need some little further explanation. The fact, gentlemen, that the accused person had a right to draw the moneys from the bank, or perhaps I should say, rather than a right to draw the moneys, an authority to draw the moneys from the bank, does not mean that he was entitled to deprive her of her savings, of her share in these joint moneys, unless, of course, he had her consent; and it is quite erroneous to suggest that because he was authorized to sign cheques and her signature was not necessary that that gave him a right to the moneys that were in the bank to her exclusion entirely. She had just as much right to these moneys as he had." A number of objections were made to the summing up by counsel for the applicant but none called in question the appropriateness of the charges of larceny to the facts of the case.