State v. . Bryant
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for LARcent, tried before Ffiftenek, J.. and a jury at Fall Term, 1875, of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The evidence in the case was substantially as follows : One John M. Rankin, the prosecutor, came from the county ■of Lincoln to the city of Charlotte, and sold his cotton, for which he received two hundred dollars in legal tender notes of the United States.
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for LARcent, tried before Ffiftenek, J.. and a jury at Fall Term, 1875, of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The evidence in the case was substantially as follows : One John M. Rankin, the prosecutor, came from the county ■of Lincoln to the city of Charlotte, and sold his cotton, for which he received two hundred dollars in legal tender notes of the United States. One hundred and eighty dollars of this amount, consisting of nine twenty dollar bills lie rolled up in ■a close package and put in his pocket book. He started home about twelve o’clock, in his wagon, and the defendant, a…
1Opinion of the Court
Reads J.
Larceny is so subtle that it is difficult to say ; it is this, and nothing else ; or this is it, and nothing else. It is liable to be confounded with fraud and trespass.
If A boiTOW a horse from B with the felonious intent to deprive B of it, and to appropriate it to his own use, and does .so, A is guilty of larceny. But if A borrow of B twenty •dollars with the same intent, it is not larceny, but it is fraud
This distinction is settled by the authorities. It is satisfactorily treated in Welsh v. People, 17 Ill. Rep. 339, and the •cases there cited.
The reason for the distinction is,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Welsh v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. . LyerlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Cedar Rapids National Bank v. American Surety Co. of New YorkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923