Holly v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Circuit Court of Coffee. Tried before Hon. Henry D. Clayton. By the act of February 20th, 1875, the stealing of “any part of an outstanding crop of corn or cotton ” was made grand larceny, without regard to the value of the part stolen.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Circuit Court of Coffee. Tried before Hon. Henry D. Clayton. By the act of February 20th, 1875, the stealing of “any part of an outstanding crop of corn or cotton ” was made grand larceny, without regard to the value of the part stolen. Under this act the defendant was indicted for “feloniously taking and carrying away fifteen years of corn, a portion of an outstanding crop, the personal property of William Russell,” &c., and upon a verdict of guilty, sentence was pronounced upon him. The rendition of sentence upon the verdict, is now assigned as error.
1Opinion of the CourtBrickell, C. J.
The most approved definition of larceny, at common law, is that given by Mr. East, in his Crown Laws: “ The fraudulent or wrongful taking and carrying away by any person of the mere personal goods of another, from any place, with a felonious intent to convert them to *239his (the taker’s) own. use, and make them his own property, without the consent oí the owner.” — 2 East, 524; 3 Green. Ev. § 150. An indispensable constituent of the offense thus defined, is, that the thing taken must - be of goods personal, and ndt of chattels real, or such as are annexed to the freehold. Corn, grass, trees, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hoskins v. TarrenceIndiana Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by11 opinions
- Davis v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Newsom v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
- Farzley v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Murphy v. OlberdingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
- Campbell v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.