Evening star., 1935-10-10

out leave and with intent to return
after temporary use.
A similar case is State VS.. Bullitt, 81
N. j. Law: 379 in State VS.. Davis. 38
Id. 176, it was held that abandon
ment of the borrowed" property "a
horse and wagon) justified an infer
ence of an intent to deprive the own
er permanently of his property. But
the intent to return should be uncon-
ditional. and where there is an ele-
ment of coercion, or of reward as a
condition of return, larceny is infer
able (36 C. j., 769. Sec. 1922. Mr..
Bishop adds land perhaps it should be
added, for the sake of some advan-
tage to the trespasser-a question on
which the decisions are not harmoni-
GUS" q Bish New Grim. Law, Sec.
758 especially note %, Id. Sec. BAL A,
Sec. 842)
! view where the rule of luci causa is
concerned, is simply that he should
mean some advantage to himself, in
distinction from mischief to another"
Sleeping Suit Used
As Extortion Aid.
In Com. VS.. Mason. los Mass. 1863,
it was held larceny to take a horse
found astray on the takers land. and
conceal it either to get reward when
advertised, or induce the owner to
sell it ''astray."
In the present case the evidence
pointed to use of the sleeping suit to
further the purposes of defendant and
assist him in eXtorting many thous-
ands of dollars from the rightful
owner. True, it was surrendered with
out payment. But on the other hand
it was an initial and probably essen
tial step in the intended eXtortion OF
money. and it seems preposterous to
suppose that it would ever have been
surrendered except as a result Of the
first conversation between Condor
and the holder of the suit. and as a
guarantee that there was no mistake
as to the right party"
1t was we'll within the province of
the jury to infer that if Condor had
refused to go on with the preliminaries
the sleeping suit would never have
been delivered. In that situation, the
larceny was established.
Point 8 is that 'the burglary, II
any, was complete in Hunterdon
County and separable from the mur-
der. presumed to have been committed
in Mercer County,"
The gist of this is that the burglary,
if any, was compete before any homi-
eide was committed. That would be
largely question of fact in any event
But in dealing with it. the rule ap-
plicable is not that of the New York
cases cited in the brief. but OF our
New Jersey courts, laid down in such
cases as State VS.. Caroline. 98. N. J.
Law 48, State VS.. Turco, 90 id. 96. cited
by plaintiff in error, and State VS..
Gimbel. 107, id. 235. To these may be
added State VS.. Mule ia. i'd 384. in
which the New. York case of People
VS.. Giro, 1877, N. Y. 152. 90 N. E. 432,
is cited with approval.
AS to the argument that the crime
Of burglary is complete when there
is nocturnal breaking and entering
/ Will lIlGtIll, IIldJ lS True
the purposes of conviction of bur-
glary. But we think it not applicable
to homicide in the commission of
burglary. 1t would be strange, in
deed, if this court were to hold. in a
case where a burglar has made his
entry, is packing up his loot, is chal-
lenged by the master of the house and
shoots and kills him, that the statu-
tory first-degree rule does not apply
because the burglary" is incomplete
Evidence Showed
Death in Burglary.
AS to this the New York Court
of Appeals said in Dolan vs. People,
81 N. Y. 485 at page 497:
IF burglar break into dwelling
house burglariously with the intent
to steal, the offense is doubtless COM
plete before he leaves the building,
but he may be said to be engaged
in the commission Of the crime until
he leaves the building with his plum