Michael Zephania v. R., Crim. App. 169-M-67; 17/5/67; Platt, J.

Michael Zephania v. R., Crim. App. 169-M-67; 17/5/67; Platt, J.

Accused was convicted of cattle theft (P.C. ss. 268, 265 ) upon evidence that he stole a goat carcass which his dogs had previously killed.

            Held: (1) Marginal notes to a statute cannot control the content of the sections to which they refer. However, they may be borne in mind in construing the sections. (Citing Mohamed

 Murtadha v. Reg. (1954) 21 E.A.C.A. 90; Stephens v. Cuckfield Rural District Council (1960) 2 A.E.R. 716.) (2) The marginal note to Penal Code section 257 refers to “things capable of being stolen.” The substance of this section refers to animate as well as inanimate classifications. Because the words of the marginal note to section 257 were reproduced almost verbatim in the substantive portion of section 265, they may be taken as part of the Penal Code. (Citing Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3^rd Edn., Vol. 36, pp. 373, 374.) Therefore, the word “thing” in other sections of the Code may be taken to refer to either animals or inanimate objects according to the sense of the particular section. Thus the word “thing” in section 268 does not demonstrate that that section refers to carcasses of animals (3) Penal Code, section 268 leaves ambiguous whether that section applies to animal carcasses, and the marginal not – “cattle theft” – should be borne in mind. Interpreting  the section in light of the marginal note, the ambiguity should be resolved by limiting the application of the section to live animals. A conviction of simple theft was substituted.