LARCENY. The felonious takL‘g of the property of another without his consent and against his will, with the intent to convert it to the use of the taker. 2 Leach 1089.
The felonious taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another. 4 Bla. Com. 299.
The appropriation, either to the use of the taker or to that of any other person, of money or personal property with intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of its use and benefit, or the withholding or secret ing of the same. Van Keuren v. Miller, 71 Hun 72, 24 N. Y. Supp. 580.
The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away by one person of the mere personal goods of another from any place; with a felonious intent to convert them to his, the taker's, use, and make them his property without the consent of the owner.
2 East, Pl. Cr. 553; U. S. v. Clew, 4 Wash. C. C. 700, Fed. Cas. No. 14,819; State v. Gray, 37 Mo. 463.
This definition was criticised by Parke, B., who said: "Perhaps this was the more accurate defini tion ; but it needed some addition ; the taking should be not only wrongful and fraudulent, but also 'without any color of right' ;" 1 Den. C. C'. 370; but the words "felonious intent" are consid ered by an authoritative text writer to exclude any color of right ; 2 Rues. Cr., 9th Am. ed. 146.
That this offence is the most technical In its dis tinctions of all the common-law felonies te, per haps, to be found In the fact that inasmuch ae the higher grade of the offence was, until Blackstone'e time, punishable capitally, the courts were inclined to find technical reasons to avoid the infliction of that penalty for mere wrong done with refereoce to the property. By reason of the depreciation of money and the consequent appreciation of the money value of property which took place within two centuries and a half after• the passage of the Statute of Weetminister I. (A. D. 1275), ch. 15 ; which made grand larceny to consist of the stealing of property above the value of twelve pence, cases of larceny became capital which would not have been such at the time the statute was passed ; and there fore Lord Coke suggests that the valuation of prop erty is determining whether the offense was graod larceny ought to be reasonable ; 1 McClain, Cr. L.
§ 534.
Larceny was formerly in England, and still is, perhaps in some states, divided into grand and petit or petty larceny, according as the value of the property taken was great or small ; 2 East, Cr. 736; State v. Wilson. 3 McCord (S. C.) 187: Ward v. People, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 395; State v. Goode, 8 N. C. 463 ; State v. Murphy, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 498. In England this distinction is now abolished, by 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 29, § 2 ; and the same is true of many of the states, although in some a difference is made, similar in theory, between cases where the amount stolen is more and where it is less than one hun dred dollars or some fixed sum.
Compound larceny is larceny under cir cumstances which, in view of the law, ag gravate the crime. The law in relation to this branch of larceny is to a great extent statutory.
The property of the owner may be either general; 2 Den. Cr. Cas. 449; or special; Palmer v. People, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 165, 25 Am. Dec. 551; Jones v. State, 13 Ala.. 153; 9 C. & P. 44.
There must be an actual removal of the article ; 7 C. & P. 552 ; Williams v. State. 63 Miss. 58 ; and at least a temporary posses sion in the taker; State v. Higgins, 88 Mo. 354; Madison v. State, 16 Tex. App. 435; People v. Meyer, 75 Cal. 383, 17 Pac. 431; but the having the property under control even for a short space of time is sufficient, though it is abandoned before being effectu ally appropriated by the wrong-doer; State v. Gray, 106 N. C. 734, 11 S. E. 422; State v. Chambers, 22 W. Va. 779, 46 Am. Rep. 550; State v. Higgins, 88 Mo. 354. The tak ing and carrying away may be committed by setting in motion an agency, innocent or otherwise, by which the property is asported from the possession of the owner to that of the thief or his accomplice; Com. v. Barry, 125 Mass. 390; 11 Q. B. D. '21; State v. Hunt, 45 Ia. 673.