Whenever the defendant can be regarded in the light of the Aervant or agent of the owner, he is guilty of larceny ; People v. Call, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 120, 43 Am. Dec. 655; Whart. Cr. Law (9th Ed.) § 956; Crocheron v. State, 86 Ala. 64, 5 South. 649, 11 Am. St. Rep. 18 ; People v. Perini, 94 Cal. 573, 29 Pac. 1027. Where a master paid his serv ant a £10 note, thinking it was a £1 note, and the servant took it innocently, but after wards discovered the mistake and made up his mind to appropriate the note, it was held by a divided court that this was not larceny; [1895] 2 I. R. 709.
By Stat. 24 & 25 Viet. c. 96, a bailee who fraudulently converts the property entrust ed to him to his own use is guilty of •lar ceny ; Cox & Saunders, Cr. L. 26. The pos session of the bailee is the possession of the owner, and a larceny thereof from the for mer is a larceny from the owner; State v. Moore, 101 Mo. 316, 14 S. W. 182. When the possession of an article is entrusted to a Person, who carries it away and appropri ates it, this is no larceny ; 4 C. & P. 545; Com. v. James, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 375; Wright v. Lindsay, 20 Ala. 428 ; Nichols v. People, 17 N. Y. 114; see Norton v. State, 4 Mo. 461; State v. Haskell, 33 Me. 127; White v. State, 11 Tex. 769 ; but when the custody merely is parted with, such misappropriation is a larceny ; People v. Call, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 120, 43 Am. Dec. 655; 11 Q. B. 929. One who ob tains possession of property by fraud, from one who intends to retain the ownership, and subsequently carries it away, is guilty of larceny, though he would not be if he ob tained both possession and ownership by fraud; State v. Will, 49 La. Ann. 1337, 22 South. 378. There is no consent to posses sion sufficient to prevent a prosecution for larceny where a transportation company per mits a thief to take property under the mis taken assumption that he is entitled to it where he has placed the wrong check upon it ; Aldrich v. People, 224 Ill. 622, 79 N. E. 964, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1149, 115 Am. St. Rep. 166, 8 Ann. Cas. 284.
The crime of larceny may be committed by a finder of lost money or goods, who, knowing or having reason to know who is the owner of the same, instead of restoring them to him, conceals or fraudulently ap propriates them to his own use; Kennedy v. Woodrow, 6 Houst. (Del.) 46; Perrin v.
Corn., 87 V. 554, 13 S. E. 76.
Where the finder of, a\ bank check handed it to a person who falsely represented that he expected to see the owner and would give it to him, and thereupon converted it to his own use, it was held larceny ; State v. Levine, 79 Conn. 714, 66 Atl. 529, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 286. One with whose wife money is left by a finder for his inspection, on her suggestion that it may be his, is guilty of larceny if he wrongfully retains it under the claim that he is the time owner ; Williams v. State, 165 Ind. 472,/75 N. E. 875, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 248.
Where a dealer in waste paper appropri ated a few stamped envelopes found in a crate of waste paper purchased by him, he was held not guilty of larceny; People v. Hoban, 240 Ill. 303, 88 N. E. 806, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1132, 16 Ann. Cas. 226. So where one renting a store found two barber's bot tles in some rubbish, which be washed and placed on a shelf and afterwards sold; Siem ers v. State (Tex.) 55 S. W. 334; contra, where one bought a trunk not knowing that' it contained articles of clothing and appro priated such articles, provided that the crim inal intent was formed at the time he dis covered them in the trunk; Robinson v. State, 11 Tex. App. 403, 40 Am. Rep. 790. So of money found in a bureau bought at auction; 7 M. & W. 623.
Abandoned property having no owner can not be the subject a larceny ; U. S. v. Smiley, 6 Sawy. 640, Fed. Cas. No. 16,317; Debbs v. State, 43 Tex. 650.
Lost property, as distinguished from mis laid, cannot, it is said, be the subject of lar ceny; Lawrence v. State, 1 Humph. (Tenn.) 228, 34 Am. Dec. 644.
See FINDER.
The decisions have not been entirely uni form as to whether the fraudulent retention of money delivered to be changed is larceny. It has been held in England not to be so, but here the contrary view has been taken; Hil debrand v. People, 56 N. Y. 394, 15 Am. Rep. 435 ; State v. Anderson, 25 Minn. 66, 33 Am. Rep. 455, n. See 9 C. & P. 741; 11 Cox, Cr. Cas. 32.
Where a livery stable in possession of horses had a lien thereon for their keep and the owner broke and entered the stable, etc., held that it was burglary (statutory) ; State v. Nelson, 36 Wash. 126, 78 Pac. 790, 68 L. R. A. 283, 104 Am. St. Rep. 945, citing 19 Am. & Eng. Encyc. L. 499.