Facts: The defendant took a taxi ride, but refused to pay at the destination. The taxi driver decided to take the defendant back o the start of the journey. On the way back the defendant ran off. The defendant tried to argue that payment was expected at the destination, not where he ran off.

Held: However, the Court of Appeal rejected this argument: he had left the place where payment was expected (i.e. the taxi) at a time when he was liable to pay the full fare.

Facts: A defendant went into a shop (in the 1830s) wearing an academic cap and gown of the kind typically worn by members of Oxford University at that time. The shopkeeper assumed he was a member of the University and therefore gave a discounted price.

Held: It was held that by wearing this garb the defendant was representing that he was a member of the University. As he was not, this amounted to false representation.

Facts: A father and daughter and a man named Smith went to a restaurant. The daughter left early in a rush. The father and Smith then absconded without paying. They were convicted of making off without payment. The daughter appealed contending she thought her father was paying and was thus not dishonest.

Held: The daughter's conviction was quashed. The words 'dishonestly makes off' should be given their ordinary meaning and the jury should relate these words to the facts of any case. In the majority of cases no elaboration is required. There is no requirement of leaving by stealth in order to amount to being dishonest, the words 'makes off' simply means depart.

Facts: A person took the written part of a driving test impersonating someone else.

Held: Court upheld the conviction of fraud. By turning up at the test centre and presenting someone's identification they were impliedly claiming to be that person.