The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-10-16


States 10 try any such offences after conyicon or aequi
lance for the same offence In State court -1
The jurisdiction Of the federal and State authorities Is
therefore concurrent in this and the familiar prin
lenteryenes that where there concurrent urisdie
lions the court which first has possession Of the case must
determine 1t conclusiyely
In the exercise of this jurisdiction this court has
written criminal code To which 1t resort Its source
OF power il look TO the common law further than
As guide TO regulate 1t while in The exercise OF urisdie
ton given by statute. "The legislative authority must
first make act crime, aix punishment 10 IT, and de-
clare the that shall have jurisdiction OF the offence
before coRnzance be taken OF t-United States
Hudson, Cranch, 80. In this the act Of Congress
declares robbery committed any vessel ship,
the company ading of such vessel ship 10 any har
Dor basin bay river where the GIBBS and flows to
be piracy OF the meaning of the term robbery as used
in the statute we think doubt can be entertained II
must be understood in the in which II is recognised
and defined at common aw.-United States a. Palmer 3
Wheaton, 32I.
The simple inquiry then, u.s. what robbery com
law the time of the separation of the American
colonies from the parent county, As IL then IL
mains for all the purposes of the present investigation
In robbery (which Is larceny accompanied by force and
ntimdstion the elonious intent Of taking constitutes the
crime
Blackstone tells us that the taking and carrying away
be done amino rand or the civil law expresses
it. lueri Lord Coke in his Institute and Hawkins,
10 his pleas OF the Crown, gives the same definition !
Hawkins, 90.
Archbod that Larceny far respects the in
tent with which it is committed is where man knowingly
takes and carries away the goods of another without any
claim pretenoe of right with intent wholly deprive
the owner Of them and to appropriate convert them to
his use.n
ceny to be the wrongful taking of goods with intent to
despoil the owner Of them iueri
The foregoing definitions from wellesabshed texwri-
eTs all include in larceny the idea that the taking must be
iuer This is the view taken of them by the
court of Missouri in the of Witt the State "The
taking they cay, must be done amino arand the
civil law expresses it, uer The felonous intent is
the material ingredient in the offence To constitute this
offence therefore, in any form, there must be taking from
the possession carrying away against the will of the
owner and felonous intent to convert to the offenders
Missouri.
Again the State of Delaware was ruled that If the
party indicted for larceny when he took the horse for the
stealing OF which he indicted intended to appropriate
him to his use, by selling retaining him, it
felony but that he only took him to aid in his escape
runaway slave and did not to sell retain him, 1t
was no more than trespass Harrington, $40.
In Alabama the supreme court of that State consider the
doctrine at law to be that the criminal intention
constitutes the offence and is the only criterion by which
to distinguish larceny from respass that according to
the definitions Of commonaw writers to constitute the
offence Of larceny is sufficient that the goods be
taken for the purpose of destroying them should
take the horse of another for the purpose Of destroying him
TO njure his neighbour and should destroy him. such Of
fence would he punishable malicious mischief but it
would of the essential ingredients of larceny the
version of the property" state u, Hawkins Porter
46l In that case although it evident the prisoner
had secreted the slave from her with view to do
the injury by aiding the slave to obtain her free
DOM STILL there intention TO convert the slave
his own use 1t was held no larceny.
The courts, then, Of Missouri Delaware, and Alabama in
the three cases cited consider the doctrine settled by the
common law to be- that TO constitute felonious intent in
larceny there must be and and that the iuer
cdusa is necessary ingredient in the intent
There are decided cases in England which sustain sim
liar doctrine
Thus in Rex Holloway, Car Payne, 524, decided
in 1887 the prisoner wasndiced for stealing gun from
the prosecutor, who was gamekeeper The latter know
ing the prisoner TO be poacher sliced him companion
OF the prisoner rescued him. and the latter getting free
wrenchsd the gun from the prosecutor, and off with it.
Ii proved that the day the prisoner said he would
cell the gun 1t not afterwards found The jury
turned that they did think that the prisoner the
time that be took the gum had any intention of
priatng II to his "Then sad the court) you
must acqut him 1t Is question peculiarly your con-
sderation If he did not intend when he took it. its APP
preparation is not felony and his resolving aferward
TO dispose of it viii not make IL such"
In Rex "a Crump, Q. and p, 65s, the prisoner was
indicted for stealing horse, three brides, two saddles
the prisoner intended TO steal the horse for be intended
TO steal the articles and only the horse convey the
articles away be would not be guilty Of stealing the horse
Rex %. Wright Car. and P. 27S the OF
want indicted for stealing his masters plate and it appeared
that after the plate missed but before complaint
made the prisoner replaced IT, II in proof that the
plate bad been pawned and the pawnbroker testified that
redeemed IT, The court left it to the jury say whether
the prisoner took the plate with intent steal il
raise money IL for time and then IL for in the
latter II was larceny. The prisoner acquitted
In Rex o, Van Myer, r. 4 r. liz, the prisoner was
master OF Prussan vessel captured by the British and
carried into home port lie indicted for stealing
tain articles from the ship There evidence prove
whether the prisoner had taken the articles his own
that Of his Chamber j. reserved the point
for the opinion OF the judges and majority Of them were
Of the opinion that II the prisoner had taken the articles for
his own use II was larceny, otherwise II was not.
In Regina "a Godfrey, O. and p 563 il decided
that when person from curiosity, either personal po-
litcal opens letter addressed another person and
keeps the letter this is in the absence Of statute IL
trespass not larceny though part Of his object
may be to prevent the letter from reaching s destination
The foregoing decisions mbody In practical form the
principle included In the definitions given by the text-wri-
ters We will now turn TO three four modern English
decisions which mbody different doctrine. In the year
1915 two decisions made in England and which
followed by two Others similar In their character and
without any discussion.
The first Is the Of Rex. Cabbage R and goa
The principle decided was shat the intent be destroy
the article taken, II win be sufficient constitute the o.
fence Of larceny done 10 the prisoner any other
person, though not In pecuniary way" The
this The prisoner to his accomplish who was in
dicted for stealing horse broke into the prosecutors
stable and took away the horse which be backed into
coal pit and killed majority Of the judges decided il
larceny 10 1888 when this cited author
y, Lord Abingdon exclaimed II accede to that
| s O. and p, 500.
The second leading English on this point is that Of
Rex Mott q r. and r., 3O7 decided on the authority
Of the former In that case and servants opened The
gransry OF their master by Of false key and took
two bushels Of beans TO give their masters horses In adj
don 10 the quantity allowed and II was held TO lar
ceny. Some Of the Judges alleged that the additional
quantity OF beans would diminish the work Of the men who
had to look after the horses aud this dimnuton In their
labor considered constituting iucri cau,d The
sstuteness with which the ivc sought for and
found in this strong proof Of the striugency OF the
rule which required II necessary ingredient IN the
lonious intent in larceny
4 TAI a