The taking must be in the county where the criminal is to be tried; 9 C. & P. 29. But when the taking has been in the county or state, and the thief is caught with the stolen property in another county than that where the theft was committed, he may be tried in the county where arrested with the goods; as, by construction of law, there is a fresh taking in every county in which the thief carries the stolen property; Com. v. Rand, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 475, 41 Am. Dec. 455; Stinson v. People, 43 IlL 397; State v. Grant, 76 Mo. 236 ; and the court of the latter county has jurisdiction of the offence; Thomas v. Coin. (Ky.) 15 S. W. 861. One who steals property in a foreign country, and brings it into this, is guilty of larceny here, on the ground that as the legal possession remains in the owner when the first taking is felonious, every asportation of the prop erty is a fresh taking; and a prosecution for such an offence the courts will presume that the laws of the foreign country are the same as our own, and that the original tak ing there was criminal, upon proofs of acts which would make it criminal here; State v. Morrill, 68 Vt. 60, 33 Atl. 1070, 54 Am. St. Rep. 870. Whether an indictment for larceny can be supported where the goods were proved to have been originally stolen in another state, and brought thence into the state where the indictment was found, is a point on which the decisions are contra dictory. Where property was stolen in one of the British Provinces and brought by the thief into Massachusetts, it was held not larceny there; CQM. v. Uprichard, 3 Gray (Mass.) 434, 63 Am. Dec. 762. See contra, State v. Bartlett, 11 Vt. 650.
The property must be personal; there can be no larceny of things fixed to the soil; 1 Hale, P. C. 510; but as the taking and car Tying away would necessarily terminate the character of the property as realty even if were such, the important point of this distinction is' that if the severance from the realty of anything which is a part thereof, or annexed thereto so as to go with the realty by descent, or in case a severance is made by the wrongdoer himself, so that the taking and carrying away is a continuous act, the offence is not larceny, because the taking and carrying away is not of the per sonal property of another, that which was severed not having been in his possession as a chattel, but only as the portion of a real ty; ore which has not been mined or other wise severed, so as to convert it into a chat tel, Is not the subject of larceny ; State v. Burt, 64 N. C. 619 ; State v. Berryman, 8 Nev. 262 ; nor is water or ice, unless the ice is cut or stored in an ice-house ; Ward v. People, 6 Hill (N. Y.) 144 ; State v. Pott meyer, 33 Ind. 402, 5 Am. Rep. 224; or the water is pumped into supply pipes; 11 Q. B. D. 21; sea-weed lying ungathered on the shore is part' of the realty and not the sub ject of larceny ; 4 Ir. R. C. L. 6 (but see Corn. v. Steimling, 156 Pa. 400, 27 Atl. 297,
where waste coal was carried upon land by a stream and deposited there and the appro priator was held guilty of larceny). It is not larceny to detach any portion of a build ing and carry it away ; Smith v. Com., 14 Bush (Ky.) 31, 29 Am. 'Rep. 402; Langston v. State, 96 Ala. 44, 11 South. 334; 3 Taunt. 48; but the courts have expressed their dis approval of a doctrine so technical even while compelled to follow it; People v. Wil liams, 35 Cal. 671; and in many cases of constructive annexation, have held the tak ing and carrying away to be larceny, such as window sashes not permanently annexed to the building ; 1 Leach 20 ; chandeliers; Smith v. Com., 14 Bush. (Ky.) 31, 29 Am. Rep. 402; doors taken from their hinges; Ex parte Willke, 34 Tex. 155 ; rails in a fence; Harberger v. State, 4 Tex. App. 26, 30 Am. Rep. 157; belts belonging to a mill; Jackson v. State, 11 Ohio St. 104 ; valves in a portable pump ; Langston v. State, 96 Ala. 44, 11 South. 334; the key of a door; Hoskins v. Tarrence, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 417, 35 Am. Dec. 129 ; 1 McClain, Cr. L. § 536.
If once severed by the owner, a third per son, or the thief himself, as a separate transaction, any• part of the realty becomes the subject of larceny; State v. Moore, 33 N. C. 70; Ward v. People, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 395.; 7 Taunt. 188.
The common-law rule has been modified from time to time in England, so as to af ford protection to things fixed to the free hold. The rule was never satisfactory, and the courts in modern times have been in clined to confine it within the narrowest limits ; 30 Am. Rep. 159, n.; Harberger v.
State, 4 Tex. App. 26, 30 Am. Rep. 157. At common law there can be no larceny of ani mals, in which there is neither an absolute nor a qualified property, as beasts fens na tures; Gillet v. Mason, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 16; State v. Jenkins, 78 N. C. 481; 1 C. & K. 494 ; but otherwise of animals reclaimed or con fined, as deer, or rabbits in a park, fish in a tank, pheasants, etc., in a mew ; State v. House, 65 N. C. 315, 6 Am. Rep. 744 ; all valuable domestic animals, and all animals donates natures, which serve for food. But all other animals which do not serve for food, as dogs, unless taxed, are not subjects of larceny. But oysters, when planted for use, are so, as is the flesh of dead animals ; 1 Whart. Cr. Law § 864. But under statute in some of the states there may be a .larceny of dogs, and actions may be maintained for injury to them ; People v. Campbell, 4 Par ker, C. C. (N. Y.) 386; Parker v. Mise, 27 Ala. 480, 62 Am. Dec. 776 ; Harrington v. Miles, 11 Kan. 480, 15 Am. Rep. 355, n; Com. v. Hazelwood, 84 Ky. 681, 2 S. W. 489 ; a horse is a subject of larceny, although at the time he has been removed or strayed from the premises of his owner ; Burger v. State, 83 Ala. 36, 3 South. 319. Statutes exist in many states making the stealing of electric current larceny.
See BREAKING BULK ; RING-DROPPING.