The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-07-01

fo9Gu ana fcau< way IN Su1& ieSt~Nt
olYenses u this kind are tnadeaaafeiy
treated.
Another fundamental law il. Thou
shalt not steal" II would be denied
that any civilized state did not punish
theft, yet the daily experience Of the
public il that men known 10 have COM
mitted robbery are acquitted and turned
loose because OF difference Of opinion
as TO the subdivisionai name Of the
statutory ofYense with which he should
have been charged. OF course there
can be q new Indictment, but this often
involves not only the cost Of new
trial, but the detention. most unwar-
raniabiy, OF prosecuting witnesses. One
OF the most obnoxious distinctions In
that between larceny and embezzie-
Inent. II a man has committed either.
4. in OF small consequence to the state
which IL IL: the social stigma Is the
same, and the punishment Is almost the
same. RapaIje makes the distinction as
follows: IF servant or agent has
merely the custody Of the goods which
he feloniousiy appropriates. the offense
is larceny; II he has the possession. he is
guilty Of ENHANCEMENT" What ends
Of justice does such a fine distinction
serve? According to Webster. posses
sion means the having. holding. the de-
tention Of property in ones power or
command; while custody means the
keeping or granting. Not only is the
ordinary citizen who has been robbed
puzzled by this air-splitting. but courts
find a difficulty in determining where
one begins and the other ends. In the
case. Commonwealth vs.. OMalley, 81
Mass. a servant girl had some money.
The defendant wanted to borrow a dol
lar from her. She agreed 10 let him
have the dollar and handed him her
purse, asking him to count the money
and take out the dollar. He counted
the money and kept it all. To the lay
mind, and doubly To the servant girl,
this was robbery. II took a decision Of
the supreme court to determine that it
was larceny and not embezziement. In
an Oregon case, State VS.. Quicker.
man went To a banker and desired to
have a SO gold piece changed The
banker delivered to him a roll of money.
saying il contained $40 i'm silver. After
wards the banker discovered that 1t
contained ten $50 gold pieces. This was
held to be larceny. on the part Of the
man who kept it. In % Mass. Com
monweaith VS.. Berry. 1t was held that
where a servant appropriated money
which he was compelled to take from
one member Of a firm to another he was
guilty OF larceny and not embezzlement.
because the servant had the custody
but not the possession of the money.
In New York case, the complaining
witness gave the defendant $50 gold
piece to pay for % cents worth of liquor.
The defendant went out To get ii, and
gambled the whole amount away. The
supreme court held this to be larceny,
even though the money was given to the
defendant by the complaining witness.
There may have been good reason for
making such fine distinctions between
embezzIement and larceny. when the
n
of trust. cognizable only by the civil
courts. but since 1t has been generally
brought by statute into the category of
crimes. the distinction is utterly imma-
tegai
The welfare of society 4 not promoted
by legal wrangling over such distinc-
tons: no intelligent Judge or juryman
need concern himself about the name Of
the oifense. The act is that of a thief.
the wrong is that Of "A theft; and the
law Thou shalt not steal should suf-
flee. The only distinction the statute or
Of culpabili,y. and the only purpose Of
that Is to mete out adequate punish
ment
The law does not recognize such rea-
soning as that which led 10 the acquit-
tai OF Bradley. Yet justice was done II
Is that character II justice which finds
a responsive chord in the human breast
II the administration CT the law were
only to protect the righteous and punish
the wrong doer. the profession would
be the noblest in the world. and judges
would rank highest IN human estima-
ton.
LABoH's AspIRATIu.