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

Will be abundantly manifest from an eX-
animation of the text writers. both Eng
lish and American. as well as adiudged
eases cited by them.
Mr.. Archbold. after stating the rule OF
the common law. and that it was always
as matter Of substance, citing |
many examples from the Books, To show /
ITS strictness and explain its reason, says: /
lat common law, however, II party steal |
goods in the county Of \, and carry them |
into the county Of i. he may he indicted |
or appealed in the latter county OF lar |
ceny.' But this does not contradict the |
general rule, but is founded upon anoth- |
er principle, viz: that the possession OF |
goods stolen by the thief, Is a larceny m !
every county into which he carries the !
goods-Jecnlse Helegal possession st,HrenaiR-
ing nth he o,cHer, every moments contln-
uance Of the trespass and felony amounts,
IN legal contemplation. to new caption
and asportation.-l Arch. Cr T., =. b5-4,
note |, and p. 69-note >; East +. {.
p. Ul-2
So Mr.. Russell saws: Larceny, like any
other offence, must regularly be tired IN
the same county or jurisdiction in which
it was committed. but it should be noted
with respect TO larceny, that the offence
ty or jurisdiction into which the thief carries
the goods for the legal possession of them
remains i'm the true owner. and every mo
mont's continuance Of the trcspass and
felony amounts to a new caption and as
portation-2 Russells Or. J.. =. ll6.
SO, also Lord Hale lays down the rcas-
on Of the rule: ssIf A robs b in the coun-
ly of C., and carries the goods into the
county Of d, A cannot be indicted of rob-
berry in the county d. because the roJbay
was in another county, but he may be in
dicted Of larceny or theft in the county of
ID, because Il is theft ,rbsrerr he carries The
goods Hale P C., j07-S; Hale P. c. l63.
The same principle for the same reason Is
stated in | Dyers' r. p. 80.
And Lord Coke, himself in Burners
case, 9TH Coke, =. 81, admits the same
principle, for. avs he, felony doth not
dlvest prOperty.1
Again. Mr.. HaFkens says: 1T is GER
tain that he whofteals my goods in the
county of B, and carries them into the
county Of c. may be indicted or appealed
| in the county otG, as well as that of b
bc-7llsc b.TpossIssio5 stH confirming u, nee CO.
| cry moment, continuance Of kc frcspass IS as
much q ,rr0ny, and may come J0,dcr he ,c0rd
capt., much as he first taking. '-IIawkens
p. G., CHI. 10, -, p. ljl.
Mr.. East states the same principle and
| gives the same reason in nearly the same
language Vol. Z. p. c. p. 77l-2
| 1t Is then for the reason so often repeat
| ed in the cases Just cited. and not because
| of the supposed knowledge" which the
| common law takes of offences committed
| in different counties orfIrisdictions, that
/ the removal Of stolen property from one
| county to another Is universally admitted
| 10y the authorities, to be larceny in every
] county into, or through which, it Is so re
/ moved.
We again repeat, that never in the his
/ tory of the common law did il take cogni-
zance Il, one county of offences committed II,
/ another, any more than it took notice IN
/ England of offences committed 10 The I'M
/ tel .Safes The common law. in every age
| and every country where il has been re
cognized, has confined itself in the pun
ishment of crimes and misdemeanors. to
/ the county where they have respectively
| happened. 1t has, therefore recognized
no such distinction in its operation be-
tween counties and countries. as that sup
| posed to be established bv Buffers case.
| The reason assigned for the distinction
| therefore. between Counties and States. is
NllbllN Nll-Nl 'blAFhA III lAtA. 'fl pun
| ciple and the distinction there originated.
has only received the dubious sanction of
! three illv considered cases in England
Rex vs.. Powers > Eng. Crown Cases, p.
| BIS. decided in lN32 upon the authority of
Buffers case, and Regina V. Madge, Is
l Eng g. /. r. p. % on the sole authority
of Rex vs.. Powers decided in 1899, and
Rex vs.. Anderson. decided in l763. cited
I in. , Ea.t 30 .r,l H..rr -
this country. following and citing the
reasoning and authorities already referred
to.
In support of this distinction, we have
been referred to several American author,
tiles and TO text writers. noting the eX-
ception supposed TO be made 10y Lord
Coke in Buffers case. and giving that
case, and the reason it assigned for such
exception.
The State vs. Brown, LIST Haywood's y.
&. r., p. 10. decided on the ground that
there was but oHs offence, and not a new
caption and aSportation at every step. As
held by the authorities already cited. and
on the authority of Hawkcn's +. c., citing
Buffers case, so holds.
It's so held in Simpson vs.. The State
4th Humphries, $50, and an elaborate ar.
gument made. to prove that where prop.
erty is stolen in one State and removed L.
another, the legal possession Of the true
owner is thereby lost. and the wrong doeI
acquires a right thereto, which gives him
criminal, though not civil immunity for the
continued trespass and wrong.
The two cases from , Johnson-The
People vs. Gardner, D. AZ, and The PEG
I TYlps-pz@IS ciS:--p- +T9-deciding thu
same way anu cited in Humphreys. ne
Their furnish us a single reason or authority
for their decision; on the contrary. in the
first case two authorities are cited to the
contrary. These two cases are subsequent
", directly overruled in II Wendell. in
dependent of the Statute under which
this last case occurred.
The only remaining case in this coun
try where the exception is maintained
which has come within our notice. is the
case of Simmons vs.. The Commonwealth
Binney, 6l7.
This case Is reviewed by Mr.. Bishop in
his work on Or. L., vol, 500, after hav
ing stated in the previous section, that
''our Courts cannot permit offence.
against foreign Government, nor there
fore take cognizance of such offences
| Neither on the other hand can man b,
heard to excuse himself for a criminal
act here, by alleging that he did the same
thing eLsc,rhers" He saws, Therefore
when jury sitting in Pennsylvania found
a special verdict THAT the defendant did
feloniously steal. take and carry away the
goods &c, within the State of Delaware
and that he brought the same into tn,
city of Philadelphia within the iurisdic
ton of this Court, the Judges very prop
erly refused to sentence the prisoner
while probably the jury. on the facts
might have rightly convicted him of lar
cenv in PENNSYLVANIA. Always when q
man has with him property in this State
we may look into the legal relation ht
sustains to it; if he has stolen il in anOth
er State, he has not the right to it, custo
DIV even here. And the rule in larceny is
that when a man, having in his mind the
intention to steal, makes any removal oI
carrying away Of personal property, to tn,
custody of which he has no right, he com
mits the crime
And therefore in the above case the
finding Of the jury, in so far as it stated a
larceny in Delaware, was wholly irrele
want and in emitting to say whether
there was a removal Of the goods by tres
pass with the intent to steal them in Penn
sylvania, it was defective.
See also the reasoning of Justice Brock
enridge in his dissenting opinion.
On the other hand the eases and text
writers in this country, and more especial
" those of the latest date, with the cx
ception of those referred to above. repudi
ate this exception and maintain the origi
nal rule. to be found everywhere in the
: law books. that larceny Is considered a,
! committed in every County or State jur;a
dictiOs into which the thief carries tho
3 goods, for he reason that the legal posses
sion of them remains with the true owner
and every moments continuance Of the
! trespass and felony amounts to a new cap
ton and asportation.-2 RuSSell's Or. l..
?. ll6; The People vs.. Burke, ii Wend.
= l29; The State ". Bartlette, ii Vermont
r., p. $50; Hamilton vs.. The State, II
Ohio, 435; Hemmaker V. The State, /:
. Missouri r., p. 4j3; The Comm. rs. Cum
mings, Mass. r., p. ZIG; The Same V
! Andrews, Mass r.. p. II; The Same vs.
: Rand, Metcalf, p. Al; The Same vs.. Up
rlchand, 3 Gray r.. p. 43I; Cummms vs.
The State, Harris & Johns. r., $40; Tn,
+ State vs.. Ellis, Connecticut, ?. lS5; The
state vs.. Douglass, II Maine r., 1875; Tn,
State vs.. Somerville, 81 Maine, =. II; Tn,
state vs.. kinman, Richardson ). G. r.
p 7. 49I. See also Bishops Cr Law, | vol.
s595 to 600; Arch. CT p, GS. mote >, by
Waterman, edit andp. 63-4, mote u
= vol. Arch. Or. ?. p. 35j-l3-l4-l5, mote D
Wharton's American Cr L., slSI5-l6-l7
n Revised Edits Russell on Cr's., (7tl
OIL n 4 4