Case Name: The State v. Solomon M'Lain
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1810-11
Citations: 2 Brev. 443
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Solomon M’Lain.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
NOV. 1810.
The State v. Solomon M’Lain.
The word pig not being in the act of assembly against hog stealing, an indictment for stealing a pig, contrary to that act, cannot be supported.
The defendant was tried in Barnwell district, before Charles Goodwin, Esq., who sat as judge, in place of Smith, J., on an indictment which charged him with stealing a pig, contrary to act of assembly. The counsel, for the defendant, moved to quash the indictment) on the ground that there was no act of assembly which made tbe stealing a pig criminal; and that the common law offence was done away by the act against stealing cattle and hogs. Tbto court quashed the indictment on the last ground.
The motion in this case was by Stark, Solicitor of tbe Southern Circuit, to reverse the decision of the court; and in support thereof he argued, that the conclusion of the indictment, might be rejected as surplusage, and the indictment would be good at common law ; also, that ‘ pig” might ho considered as another word for “ hog,” aoJ could not be mule to signify any other beast.

Opinion:
By tub court.
The word ' pig" is not in ,'ho act against hog stealing. An indictment fir stealing a pig contrary to the act of assembly, cannot be supported. Since tbe net of assert.b'y against cattle and hog stealing, an indictment at common law lor stealing a pig is not good, notwidistanding the word " pig" is omitted in the act; because the word " hog," being a general name, was intended to comprehend all the different species of the bog kind, the stealing of which was larceny at common law. And the act having altered the punishment, not by way of accumulation of the penally, but to one less harsh and shameful, it ought to be construed as a repeal of the common law as to the punishment, and consequently as to the sort of indictment to be used. An indictment, therefore, in the pro-sent case, ought to have been preferred for stealing a bog; tbe word *• bog" being used in tbe act, and no distinction made as to tbe several kinds of bogs, or in regard to their size ; though for further description, the size might have been mentioned, or described.
Motion rejected.