To secure a reward offered for the arrest of any persons stealing goods from a certain store, a detective, through a confederate, in duced an employee in the store to steal a watch and bring it to him, whereupon be at once returned it to its owner; held that the detective was guilty of larceny of the watch, the animus furandi being found in , the intent to secure and keep the reward; Slaughter v. State, 113 Ga. 284, 38 S. E. 854, 84 Am. St. Rep. 242.
The trespass necessary to constitute lar ceny is absent where a property owner, upon being informed of a design to steal his prop erty, assists the thief in taking the property by affording him the aid of his agents in carrying out his plan ; Topolewski v. State, 130 Wis. 244, 109 N. W. 1037, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 756, 118 Am. St. Rep. 1019, 10 Ann. Cas. 627.
A person who is seen to thrust his hand into the pocket of another and withdraw it empty can be convicted of an attempt to commit larceny, even though the pocket is empty ; People v. Moran, 123 N. Y. 254, 25 N. E. 412, 10 L. R. A. 109, 20 Am. St. Rep. 732. See ATTEMPT.
The mere unlawful taking and carrying away of the property of another is not lar ceny unless it is done with criminal intent or ammo furandi; Phelps v. People, 55 Ill. 334; State v. Campbell, 108 Mo. 611, 18 S. W. 1109; Waidley v. State, 34 Neb. 250, 51 N. W. 830; Holsey v. State, 24 Tex. App. 35, 5 S. W. 523; People v. Devine, 95 Cal. 227, 30 Pac. 378 ; but see State v. Davenport, 38 S. C. 348, 17 S. E. 37. The question whether the goods were taken animo furandi is one of fact for the jury ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 484. If the taking is under a bona #de claim of right, there can be no larceny ; Miller v. People, 4 Col. 182; as where the purpose of taking is to test a right; 2 Doug. 517; or to protect one's own property ; 4 B. & S. 189; McPhail v. State, 9 Tex. App. 164. One is not guilty of larceny in selling an ar ticle under the belief that it is his own prop erty, tbough it belong to another ; Black v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. R. 58, 41 S. W. 606 ; or in taking property in the belief that he has a right so to do; Graves v. State, 25 Tex. App. 333, 8 S. W. 471; Causey • v. State, 79 Ga. 564, 5 S. E. 121, 11 Am. St. Rep. 447; Mead v. State, 25 Neb. 444, 41 N. W. 277; but the belief of a right must be an honest belief and not a mere impression or pretence; State v. Bond, 8 Ia. 540 ; State v. Thompson, 95 N. C. 596. See supra. Secrecy is not such an essential accompaniment of larceny that an attempt to conceal the taking must be shown ; State v. Hill, 114 N. C. 780, 18 S. E.
971.
An intent to convert to the thief's own use is not necessary ; all that is required is the intent to deprive the owner of his prop erty ; People v. Juarez, 28 Cal. 380; Digno witty v. State, 17 Tex. 521, 67 Am. Dec. 670; Hamilton v. State, 35 Miss. 214 ; Keely State, 14 Ind. 36; but see U. S. v. Durkee, 1 McAll. 196, Fed. Cas. No. 15,009, where the accused took and carried away muskets to prevent others from using them against him self and his friends, and it was held larceny. It is not an essential element of the crime that the taking should be lucri Musa, for !the sake of gain ; State v. Caddie, 35 W. Va. 73, 12 S. E. 1098.
The property must be of some value, though it be slight ; State v. Smart, 4 Rich. (S. C.) 356, 55 Am. Dec. 683; State v. Dobson, 3 Flarring. (Del.) 563; Coro, v. Rand, 7 Mete. k Mass.) 475, 41 Am. Dec. 455 ; but the fact that the thief treated the property as of value will amount to proof of such value by inference ; State v. Harris, 64 N. C. 127; Houston v. State, 13 Ark. 66. Any intrinsic value whatever is sufficient; Com. v. Riggs, 14 Gray (Mass.) 376, 77 Am. Dec. 333; and it is not necessary that the value should be of some particular coin; Wolverton v. Com., 75 Va. 909.
There must be a taking against the con sent of the owner ; 8 C. & P. 291 ; Wright v. Lindsay, 20 Ala. 428; State v. Harmon, 106 Mo. 635, 18 S. W. 128; State v. Verry, 36 Kan. 416, 13 Pac. 838; Wright v. State, 18 Tex. App. 358 ; and the taking will not be larceny if consent be given, though obtained by fraud; Lewer v. Com., 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 93 ; 9 C. & P. 741; but see Frazier v, State, 85 Ala. 17, 4 South. 691, 7 Am. St. Rep. 21. But where one retains money paid by mis take, it is larceny, for the consent of the owner in parting with his property was only apparent, not real; State v. Ducker, 8 Or. 394, 34 Am. Rep. 590; Wolfstein v. People, 6 Hun (N. Y.) 121. Where one gave another a sovereign, supposing it to be .a shilling, and the receiver kept the money, his conviction was affirmed by an evenly divided court; 16 Q. B. D. 190; a similar conviction was quashed in 16 Q. B. D. 643. To the same effect, 29 Ir. L. Times 323. See .8 Harv. L. Rev. 317. One Leech gave the prisoner a £10 note, both supposing it was at the time a £1 note. A substantial period of time after this, the prisoner discovered the mistake and appropriated it; held that the prisoner was not guilty of larceny, as the taking was with Leech's consent; 29 Ir.. L. T. 323, four judges out of nine dissenting.