The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-06-08

many cases cited
To give the Court jurisdiction. whether
by the common law. or bv our Constitu-
ton, there must be a complete offence
proved IN The County to the satisfaction of
the Jury, and not an offence in any other
County or State.
To ascertain the ownership Of the prop
erty, and the bona fdes OF the defendants
possession in the County where the Of
fence is charged, it is competent to show
the relation Of the defendant to the prom
erty elsewhere. or that he came to the pos
session Of il in another County. or in an
other State or country or even where no
municipal law existed, by a wrongful and
immoral act. contrary to the laws of ma
ture; and that in the prosecution of his
original fraudulent act. he brought the
property into the County where the in
dictment was found. and was Here guilty
of the illegal and felonious caption and
asportation alleged against him
While. therefore. the acts. conduct and |
situation Of the accused in relation to the
property. preceding the caption and as
portation IN ne Co,gtg. are evidence to
show his original and continued fraudu- |
/ lent intent, vet man can neither be pun /
/ Ished nor escape punishment for larceny |
IN one County by reason of his having /
[ committed the like offence in relation to |
/ the same subject in another State or Coun- |
/ ty.-l Bishop, 5j4 to 600. And such is
/ the principle clearly deducible from the
! case of Coon vs. The State, I3 S. & NJ, D
I 24G.
If it he true, as it is admitted from
! Buffers case to this day, everywhere. that
the wrongful and fraudulent possession of
/ goods, with the intent to steal. neither bv
the law of nature, nor by the law of any
civilized country. ever gave the wrong do
er a right to their pOssesSon-that the le-
gal possession of such goods still remains
with the true owner, and that every mo-
| ment's continuance of such wrongful de-
| privation, with the intent to convert them
to the takers use, Is a new taking-with
| what possible consistency in reason can
distinction be made on account Of the ~
Guilty from which the offender comes with
his wrongful acquisition?
( No matter whether he comes from an
| other County or another State. or energies
from a state of nature for the first time
clothed with the moral guilt Of larceny,
our common laC does not stop To inquire
| who he IS or from what cline he may
/ have escaped, or of what offence he
may have been guilty of elsewhere; but
finding him in the very act Of taking in
this State, and carrying away the personal
goods Of another. with telonious intent,
against the laws of this State, it takes .iu-
risdiction of the offence and the offender:
otherwise our State not only affords re-
fuge for crime. but adds immunity for the
past, license for the future, and right to
the present possession, SO far as relates to
the particular property so brought into
our jurisdiction.
Larceny is defined to be ''the wrongful
4. 4 d
by any person of the mere personal goods
of another from any place, with feloni-
Gus intent to convert them to his own
use, and make them his own property,
without the consent of the owner.
The original taking must be a trespaSs.
Amer CIR. L. 1864. \ trespass is any
trans erosion or offence against the laws
of nature or society. whether it relates to
person or property Black. Com. p. 20S.
In the absence of all civilized govern
ment. il i argued 10y all writers that oc-
cupancy gives right, and this is regarded
as the origin Of property. Mr.. Christian
in q note to the vol. Of Black. Com. =. :.
Familiarity illustrates the origin Of proper
ty. and the right to its enjoyment. He
saws. When an untutored Indian has set
before him the fruit which he has pluck
ed from the tree that protects him from
] the neat OF the sum anu the smell OF Wa
ter raised from the fountain at his feet. if
he is driven by any daring intruder from
this repast. so easy to be replaced. he in
stantly feels and resents the violation of
that law Of property which nature herself
has written upon the hearts of all man
kind"
The right Of property. therefore, exists
by the law Of nature, independent Of mu-
nicipal law. and had its origin in the
same immutable principles of reason and
justice, under the law Of nature. which it
is the great object of municipal laws to
preserve and enforce That there was no
government, no law either common or
statute, to punish the trespasser, who has
possessed himself of the goods Of the ma
tural owner, does not sanctify his tres
pass, or ripen it into a virtuous or moral
act, or give him title to the thing taken.
? The moment, therefore, that he takes his
unlawful acquisition into the Jurisdiction
of the common law. with the intent to
convert it to his own use, he has brought
, himself in the new jurisdiction, within
the strictest definition of larceny. Such
intentional violation of the possession and
right Of the true owner has every element
z in the definition, and every essential of
the moral guilt, and there can be no good
reason why it should not incur the penalty
p of larceny.
That Alabama is a sovereign State, hay
ing laws of her own, against which the
larceny in that State may be an offence
: does not render the felonious acts in Mis-
si>sippi the less an offence against our
= Code. There is nothing in the nature or
character Of the respective offences against
the laws of the two Jurisdictions. calling
for sympathy, or lenity, or making the
execution of the one dependent on the
action of the other. This merciful doe
trine of exemption from penalty, because
= OF the continued and willful repetition Of
the offence or of immunity for offenders.
because Of the number, enormty. and
ubiquitv of their offences, is one which
, can find no sanction in the true benignitv
of criminal jurisprudence.
Regarding the question as an open one
in this State, we feel no hesitation in de
, claring the rule, ,gitk9,u exception. as the
, doctrine of the common law, that the le-
, gal possession of goods stolen continues in
= the true owner. and every moments con-
: tinuance of the treSpass and felony.
amounts in legal consideration to a new
caption and asportation", which may be
the subject of Indictment in every State
to which the goods are removed at COM
mon law.
That an eminent iurist may have deci-
p ded differently. and that Others have CT
p ted his error, who III turn have become
the root of a new succession. adds nothing
, in our Judgment to the force of their rea-
soning. which alone gives force to judicial
opinions As precedents.
Counsel for plaintiff in error have mis-
taken the record in supposing that the
, third instruction asked for the plaintiff in
error in the Court below was refused
The Bird instruction was THAT to make
out the charge of larceny, it is necessary
T. to prove taking and carrying away in
p the County in which the alleged felony is
charged to have been committed and that
i the State, tosustain this prosecution must
prove a taking and carrying away of the
negroes in Clarke County, This instruc-
p ton was given and not refused rs sup
b. posed.
The case before Us does not, therefore
- involve the question before the Court, in
the ease of Norris ". The State, where
; this instruction was refused under a SINH
b lar Indictment.
, The question in this case was one of
r fact, submitted to a jury with proper in
~tructons from the Court. They found
, the defendant guilty as charged in the
= bill of Indictment. and with their verdict
we see no good reason to find fault. The
, motion for a new trial was, therefore,
t properly refused.
Let the judgment below be affirmed
, HARRIS.
HANDY. !. concurred in the conclusion
of the above opinion upon the ground that
the statute positively makes the larceny
OF a slave in another State of this confed-
eracy, and the bringing ofsuch slave into
e this State. indictable a larceny commit
: ted in this State.-IIutch. Code Isl, T.
"THE BATTLE OF ARNAGEDDoN.' The ex-
; Founders of the mysteries Of prophecy
have changed the battlefield of "Arma-
geddon," the great conflict predicted in
the.Apocalypse, and which the Swans de
; cided was to come off in the valley of the
Mississippi, and was to be so desperately
J contested that the Father of Waters would
. run red with the blood of men. The To-
| calitv Of this famous pnraVemcnt Is now