Ignorance of the law can so be a valid excuse—and
the result is this hilarious but legal....
LICENSE TO STEAL
By LOUIS NEWMAN
Illustrated by WOOD
[Transcriber's Note: This etext was produced from
Galaxy Magazine August 1959.
Extensive research did not uncover any evidence that
the U.S. copyright on this publication was renewed.]
The history of man becomes fearfully and wonderfully confusing withthe advent of interstellar travel. Of special interest to the legallyinclined student is the famous Skrrgck Affair, which began before theGalactic Tribunal with the case of Citizens vs. Skrrgck.
The case, and the opinion of the Court, may be summarized as follows:
Skrrgck, a native of Sknnbt (Altair IV), where theft is honorable,sanctioned by law and custom, immigrated to Earth (Sol III) wheretheft is contrary to both law and custom.
While residing in Chicago, a city in a political subdivision known asthe State of Illinois, part of the United States of America, one ofthe ancient nation-states of Earth, he overheard his landlady use thephrase "A license to steal," a common colloquialism in the area, whichrefers to any special privilege.
Fig. 1: Actual scene of license issue (Skrrgcksuperimposed)
Skrrgck then went to a police station in Chicago and requested alicense to steal. The desk sergeant, as a joke, wrote out a documentpurporting to be a license to steal, and Skrrgck, relying on saiddocument, committed theft, was apprehended, tried and convicted. Ondirect appeal allowed to the Galactic Tribunal, the Court held:
(1) All persons are required to know and obey the law of thejurisdiction in which they reside.
(2) Public officials must refrain from misrepresenting to strangers thelaw of the jurisdiction.
(3) Where, as here, a public official is guilty of suchmisrepresentation, the requirement of knowledge no longer applies.
(4) Where, as here, it is shown by uncontradicted evidence that adefendant is law-abiding and willing to comply with the standards ofhis place of residence, misrepresentation of law by public officialsmay amount to entrapment.
(5) The Doctrine of Entrapment bars the State of Illinois fromprosecuting this defendant.
(6) The magnitude of the crime is unimportant compared with theprinciple involved, and the fact that the defendant's unusual trainingon Sknnbt enabled him to steal a large building in Chicago, known asthe Merchandise Mart, is of no significance.
(7) The defendant, however, was civilly liable for the return of thebuilding, and its occupants, or their value, even if he had to stealto get it, provided, however, that he stole only on and from a planetwhere theft was legal.
Fig. 2: The moment of decision, case of Citizens vs.Skrrgck
The Skrrgck case was by no means concluded by the decision of theGalactic Tribunal, but continued to reverberate down the years, a fieldday for lawyers, and "a lesson