However, it is important to note that the defendant must have the mens rea for the crime charged. It is not possible to mix and match the mens rea of different crimes. This is illustrated by the case of R v Pembliton (1874) LR 2 CCR 119. The accused threw a stone at a crowd of people. He missed them but broke a glass window behind them. It was found that he intended to hit the people but not the window. Had he injured someone, he could have been convicted under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 20, but the court quashed his conviction for criminal damage since that was an offence with a different mens rea. To be liable for criminal damage, the accused must have intended to damage property or being reckless to the same. An intention to injure a person was insufficient. Therefore, transferred malice will not assist where the defendant has the mens rea for one crime and the actus reus for another.