LAIICEN1 (latrocissinsa , Latin ; Forth, French) is the legal term for theft.
This crime was formerly divided into grand and petty larceny, distinguished by the value of the property taken at one and the same time. It was grand larceny where the value was more than twelve pence; petty larceny where the value (lid not exceed that amount : dirdincUon referable to times in which twelve pence was more than equivalent to as many shillings of the present currency. At common Law the punishment of petty larceny was whipping or imprisonment ; that of grand larceny was death, unless the offender were in n situation to claim benefit of clergy, of which mode of escaping punishment neither women, nor men who were unable to read, or who had been twice married, or who had married widows, or who, not being actually clergymen, had before taken the benefit of clergy, could avail them selves (Breen? or CLEROT.] By 7 k. 8 George 1V., c. 28, the distinction between grand and petty larceny was abolished : and larcenies are now distinguished as simple or compound, sometimes called mixed, larcenies.
1. Simple larceny at common law is committed by wrongfully taking, against the will of the owner, and carrying away the goods of another, with the fraudulent and felonious intent wholly to deprive him of his property therein.
First, there must be a wrongful taking against the will of the owner, which taking may be either actual or constructive. Actual taking against the will of the owner is where goods are taken directly either out of the possession of their absolute owner, or out of the possession of a bailee, or temporary owner. Constructive taking against the will of the owner is either where the possession of goods is obtained from the owner with a preconceived intention ou the part of the person to steal them, In which case the original taking is felonious, or where the owner, without divesting himself of the legal possession of the goods, deliver* them into the hands of a person who afterwards convcrta them to his own use or to some other purpose inconsistent with the con tinuance of the owner's property therm, in which case such conversion constitutes the felonious taking. The doctrine of constructive taking has given rise to many nice distinctions. Generally 'speaking, there can be no larceny where the possession is voluntarily parted with. Thus, if I lend another my horse for a certain period, and ho mils the horse, it is no larceny, but a civil wrong, for which the only remedy is by action. But valere the possession of a horse is obtained on the pre tence only of borrowing, and with the intent to keep or sell him, such parting with the possession by the owner will not diminish the criminal responsibility of the taker. Larceny is not committed when
the ponsarion obtained in the first instance boon fido without any fraudulent intention. Thus where A saves goods from a house on fire, and takes them home, having at the time an honest intention of preserving them for the owner, although the next morning A conceals the pods and denies having had the possession of them, it is a breach of treat, and no felony ; and when goods or money are lust, the con verting of them by the finder to his own use does not amount to larceny, unless, at the time of conversion, ho knows, or has the means of knowing, who is the real owner. Where however the absolute or temporary owner belle or deliver. goods to another, but retains the beneficial pomension of them, a conversion of the goods by such bailee to his own use will be larceny. A servant entrusted with his master's goods, a shepherd with sheep, &c., who embezzles them, is guilty of larceny at common law, because in such cases the possession of the servant, Is in law the possession of the master ; but a clerk, or servant, receiving money or goods from a third person, and misappro priating the tame, Is not guilty of larceny, becalm, the goods, fie., never were In theion of the master. If the owner is, by whatever means), induced willinglyto part with his property in the goods, and not merely with the possession of them, the offence does not amount to larceny ; as where poesestion of goods is obtained rustler colour of a puretuuse actually completed, although with ins intention of running off without paying for them. But where the owner of a horse on sale allows his paces! to be tried by a person who mounts and rides off with the honor, it is larceny, as the owner never pealed with the property, nor indeed with Ilse possession, for goods in the propene* of the owner arc in law considered so; in hie possession, though used by another. Where A goes to 11's shop in the name of C, and asks for a hat which C has ordered, and it is delivered to A, who converts it to hie own use, it is no larceny, because by such delivery B parted with the property in tile hat. But if upon A's asking for the hat, B had delivered two hats for C to chasm tram, and A had con verted both or either to his own use, the offence would have been larceny, because 11 parted with the possession only, and not with the property, as the right of property would have remained in B until C had made his election, and the bare possession was obtained fraudulently.