Case Name: William H. Sullivan v. The Territory of Oklahoma
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1899-08-24
Citations: 8 Okla. 499
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Sullivan v. The Territory of Oklahoma.
Judges: B-urwell, J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of -the other Justices -concurring.
Reporter: Oklahoma Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 499–502

Head Matter:
William H. Sullivan v. The Territory of Oklahoma.
(Filed Aug. 24, 1899.)
1. Indictment — Stealing Domestio Animals — Defective, When. An indictment for stealing domestic animals, under the Statutes of 1895, is fatally defective, which does not charge that the animal was taken with the felonious intent to convert the same to his (the taken's) own use.
2. Larceny — Indictment Must Allege Value of Property. An indictment under the larceny statute of 1893, which fails to allege the value of the property alleged to have been stolen, is fatally defective.
3. Defective Indictment — Rule Applied. Hence, an indictment which charges that the defendant “did fraudulently, feloniously, stealthily, take, steal, and carry away one cow, the same being the corporeal personal property of Lock Bros. & Allen, a firm composed of John Lock, Allen Lock, and Joe Allen, with intent to deprive the said Lock Bros. & Allen, the said firm composed of the said John Lock, Allen Lock, and Joe Allen, of said corporeal personal property,does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense under either the statute of 1893 or 1895.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from the District Court of Greer County • before B. F,. Btcrwell, District Judge.
J. A. Powers, Jarrett Todd, and J. B. Keaton, for plaintiff in error.
Harper 8. Cunningham, Attorney General, for defen 'ant in error.
William H. Sullivan was convicted of the larceny of one cow, and he brings error.
Reversed.

Opinion:
Opinion of the court by
Hainer, J.:
The appellant, William H. Sulliyan, was indicted, tried, and convicted in the district court of Greer county for the crime of 'Stealing a cow, and was sentenced for a term of five years in the territorial prison at Lansing, Kan. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were duly filed, overruled, and exception® reserved. From 'this judgment and sentence the defendant brings the case here on appeal.
The first objection urged by the plaintiff in error is that the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense, and hence the court erred in overruling the demurrer thereto. The charging part of the indictment is a® follows: "That William H. Sullivan and George Slaton, late of the county of Greer, aforesaid, on orab out the 1st day of January, in the year of our Lord 1898, in the county of Greer and Territory of Oklahoma, aforesaid, did fraudulently, feloniously, stealthily, take, steal, and carry away one cow, the same being the corporeal personal property of Lock Bros. & Allen, a firm composed of John Lock, Allen Lock, and Joe Allen, with the intent to deprive the said Lock Bros. & Allen, the said .firm composed of the said John Lock, Allen Lock, and Joe Allen, of said corporeal personal property."
In the case of Hughes v. Territory, this volume, p. 28, this court held that section 1, art. 1, ch. 20, Session Laws Oklahoma, 1895, which provides, "that if any person shall steal any stallion, mare, colt, gelding, ridgling, or any ass, genet or mule, or any bull, cow, calf, steer or stag, he shall be guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement in the territorial penitentiary for a term of not less than one nor more than ten years," creates a separate and distinct offense from larceny, as defined by section 2371, Statutes of Oklahoma, 1893, and does not make the stealing of the domestic animals named in such act grand larceny, without regard to value. Mr. Justice Burwell, after an able and exhaustive review of authorities, said: "An examination of the authorities will show that 'larceny' and1 'stealing,'at common law, had the same meaning; and1 consequently stealing, as here defined, is the wrongful or fraudulent taking and removing of personal property, by trespass, with a felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof, and to convert the same to his (the taker's) own use." And again: "The legislature has modified the meaning of the word 'larceny,' as used in the crimes act, so that the taking of personal property, accomplished by fraud or stealth, and with intent to deprive another thereof, is larceny, regardless of whether or not it was taken for the purpose of depriving the owner thereof, or for the purpose of converting it to the use of the taker. Thefefore, while 'stealing' and 'larceny' at common law were synonymous terms, our statute has given to the word 'larceny' a much broader meaning than it then 'had, while 'steal' or 'stealing' has not been defined by our statutes, and must be construed according to its common-law meaning." Hence the indictment, when measured by these requirements, wholly fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense under either the statute of 1893 or 1895.
The indictment is fatally defective under the 1895 statute, for the reason that it fails to charge that the cow was taken by the defendant with a felonious Intent to convert the same to his (the taker's) own use. It is also fatally defective under the 1893 statute, for the reason that it does not allege the value of the animal charged to have been stolen. The demurrer to the indictment should therefore have been sustained.
Other errors are assigned, but, as the case must be reversed and remanded for a new trial, it is not necessary to review them- here. The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded', with directions to sustain the demurrer to the indictment, and to resubmit the cause to the grand jury for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed-.
B-urwell, J., having presided in the court below, not sitting; all of -the other Justices -concurring.