Case Name: State of Oregon, Respondent, v. Leander Johnson, Appellant
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1864-09
Citations: 2 Or. 115
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Oregon, Respondent, v. Leander Johnson, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 115–116

Head Matter:
State of Oregon, Respondent, v. Leander Johnson, Appellant.
Venue'.
1. The offense of larceny, committed without the State, continues and' accompanies the stolen property.
3. The offense may he tried in any'county within the State, into which the-stolen property may he brought by the offender..
Respondent stole a horse in Washington territory, and' with it crossed the Columbia river into Wasco county, Oregon. He was there apprehended’, indicted for larceny in that county at the December term,, MSB’,, and on trial-was con-yicted and sentenced.
His counsel at the trial asked this instruction: “ If the jury 'believe that defendant stole tbe horse in "Washington territory, they could not find him guilty of a larceny in Oregon.” Tbe court refused, and instructed tbe jury that “ it was a -continuing offense; and if tbe property was stolen in Washington territory and brought into Oregon, it was a larceny in •Oregon.”
Defendant’s counsel excepted to tbe refusal of tbe one and tbe giving of tbe other instruction, and appealed.
C. R. Meigs, prosecuting attorney, for respondent.
G. L. Woods, Esq., for appellant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Larceny is an offense at common law, and .'it continues and accompanies tbe thing stolen, from one State to another, as it does from one county to another in tbe same 'State.
Tbe decisions in tbe respective States are different. New "York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee, bold that tbe -offense would not continue if tbe original taking was without tbe State, as tbe offence would be beyond tbe jurisdiction -of them courts. Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, Maryland, Ohio and Yermont, maintain tbe same view we now have taken.
Tbe ruling of tbe court below was correct and judgment .affirmed.
Note. — Since the above decision was made, the Code, passed in 1864, provides in section 16, page 444, " that when property, feloniously taken by "burglary, robbery, larceny or embezzlement, without the State, is brought into it, the action may be commenced and tried in any county therein, into which such property may be brought." Rep.