The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-05-05
CAN ELECTRICITY BE sTOLENs

In this city many years ago it was
decided by a court that message
passing over the electric wires could be
stolen by one who lay in wait to hear
the ticking of the Geographic instru-
ments. We belive the Supreme Court
has so held. The court of last resort
in Germany has just decided. however,
much to surprise on this side. that
electricity cannot be stolen, because it
is bodyless.
In that case a man had taken the
electric current from a wire in a con-
duit of an electrical company. He was
charged with larceny and embezzle-
ment. The court held that he was
guilty of neither. This was based on
the assumption that the electric cur
rent, whatever else it may be. is body
less, and therefore is not capable Of be-
ing considered movable or personal
pr, perty, according to the reason of
the law, which should be the essence
and conclusion of all reason. That is
"object" is understood to be a piece of
irrational nature, the body of material
ness of a thing, and with this doctrine
German criminal law comedies. There
fore it is held that a bodyless thing. a
product of the mind. cannot be embez-
zled, cannot be the object of theft, no
more than a right can be stolen.
The court includes among these
things incapable of being stolen me-
chanical power But in our country
1t has been held that mechanical power
can be stolen. We are not prepared to
say, however, that this has not been
held because of statutory provision
making mechanical power an object
of theft. If mechanical power cannot
be stolen, then the law is grossly de-
fective.
However, as stated, the court in
Germany held that electricity is body
less and therefore incapable of being
taken Enormously and that is the law
for Germany, absurd though it is. II
seems that the expert witnesses tes-
titled that the question at issue is a
science, imperfectly understood al
best. They knew how to produce cleo
tricity-excite would have been the bet
ter word-for use as a power, but its
innermost action was no more explain
ed than the action of the muscle in q
human arm producing power. Scen-
lists differ as to whether electricity is
a fluid a current or what not They
have abandoned one theory after an
other and just now are talking about
the thing" not being individual or in
dependent, but being a condition trans
mitted along the wire consisting of vi
brations of the molecules of bodies
But as to this there are doubts and
there is just as much hesitation anc
speculation as ever as to the natur,
of electricity, and what are its com
plete functions, and whether it is really
wholly under control.
Under such a showing the court held
that electricity is intangible, unrea
and incapable of being stolen. mucl
less embeZZled. Its effect, said tbs
court, could be perceived in the power
produced, but what is it that produce:
the power? Who can identify it, wht
make manual delivery of it? Scienc,
holds that nothing bodily can be trans
mitted, so in this case it was not the
current, but the power expressed a
different points. separated as to loca
ton but connected by conduit. Blu
this reasoning is susceptible to com
plete answers-we think they are OBJ
vious
Then the court considered anothe
possibility. Could not an accumulate
charged with electricity be stolen, car
ried off, converted to ones use
Yes. assuredly. But what would tina
be? Why the taking of a vessel fille'
with pieces of lead and some chemical
with inherent power to render worl
in connection with corresponding
conduit
But it was said that gas and hot ant