Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1901-07-31
Opinion bv Massey, c. I.

The appellant was charged with the
crime of grand larceny, was tried and
convicted therefor. and sentenced to
Imprisonment in the state prison for a
term OF ten years. He appeals from the
judgment and the order denying his
motion for a new trial.
1. He complains that the court err
red in overrulng his demurrer to the
indictment. The specific objection made
by the demurrer is that the indictment
charges four distinct larcenies. At the
proper time he asked the court that the
State be directed to elect as to which
of the offenses charged he should be
placed upon his trial This request was
refused, and the refusal Of the court is
assigned as error. AS the action OF
the court in overruling the demurrer
and in refusing to direct the State tC
elect involves the same question, the as
signments may be properly considered
together. The indictment charges that
appellant on or about the Goth day Of
May. 1000. at the County OF Churchill
State OF Nevada, unlawfully and telOn-
iously did steal, take and drive away
particularly described steer Of certain
alleged value. the property OF Henry
Thelan; certain other particularly des-
cribed cattle OF certain alleged value
the property OF Lee Wightman; certain
other particularly described cattle. OF
certain alleged value, the property OF
W. F. Kaiser: and certain other partl-
Cularlv described cattle OF certain alleg-
ed value. the property OF J. Nj. Doug
lass If the language used in this IN
diCtment charges four distinct larcen-
les, then under the provisions OF our
criminal practice act, Compiled Laws
Section 42o3 appellants contention is
tenabe. and the demurrer should have
been sustained, and the request tor the
election should have been granted
This court has intimated that the steal
ing OF property OF different persons at
the same time and place, and by the
same act, may be prosecuted at the
pleasure of the State as one offense
or several distinct offenses.
State v. Lambert, 9 New. 324
While the authorities bearing upO1
the rule that such larceny may be pros
ecuted as one offense are not uniform
yet we are OF the opinion that tn,
weight of authorities considered witt
reference to reason, and with the stat
ute defining larceny, is against tn
claim OF appellant. In strong ant
we'll reasoned case, in which large
number of authorities are collected ant
cited against appellants contention, tn
Supreme Court of Indiana uses the
following language, which we quote
with approval: I'VE recognize NJ
COON reason to depart from what ma,
be considered the great current Of ALL
thority. and hold the pleadings in ques
ton bad, when it can reasonably be sail
that it discloses that the larceny com
planned of is but a single act or trans
saction in violation of the law agains
larceny, although the property whicl
was the subject OF the crime belonged
to several different persons. The par
ticular ownership as charged in thu
pleading of the money stolen did no
give character to the act of stealing, Blu
was merely a part of the description o
the particular crime charged to hav
been committed The information pri
ma facie under the circumstances Cal
be said to charge but one ofens
against the State. and is not open t
the objection that it is bad for duDlici
ty."
Furnace " The State, 81 N. E
(Ind.) AL.
This is a later case than JOslyn v
The State, I28 Ind. 100, cited by appel
liant, and overrules that case. 1t seem
to us that the language used in the in
dictment in the case at bar charges tina
the defendant at the same time an
place with having stolen the propert
Of different persons-charges but on
offense-one act or transaction in vic
lation of law, and fills the measure re
quired by the sixth subdivision of Sec
ton 243 OF the criminal practice &C
Com Laws, Section 42o8, by which a
indictment is declared sufficient whe
the act charged is clearly and distinc
~ set forth in ordinary and concis
language, without repetition, and
such manner as to enable person {