State v. . House
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an indictment against the defendant, in which he was charged in one count with stealing ‘‘one otter confined in the trap of one John D. Parish, of the value of one dollar, of the goods and chattels of the said John D. Parish.” A second count charged that-the otter was dead.
Read the full summary
This was an indictment against the defendant, in which he was charged in one count with stealing ‘‘one otter confined in the trap of one John D. Parish, of the value of one dollar, of the goods and chattels of the said John D. Parish.” A second count charged that-the otter was dead. At the last term of the Superior Court for the County of Johnston, the defendant’s counsel moved the Court, his Honor, Watts, J., presiding, to quash the indictment upon the ground that the thing stolen was not the subject of larceny. The motion was granted and the defendant ordered to be discharged, whereupon the…
1Opinion of the CourtSettle, J.
There was error in quashing the indictment, on the ground that the thing stolen was not the subject of larceny.
An otter belongs to the class of animals known as fem naturae, and therefore it was necessary to allege in the indictment that it had been reclaimed or confined or that it was dead. This is done in the indictment under consideration. It was not suggested that animals ferae naturae are not the subject of larceny, provided they are fit for the food of man and are dead or confined, but we apprehend that his Honor acted upon another distinction laid down in the English authorities,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. Horton.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- State v. . GallopSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1900
- State v. . KriderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
- E. A. Stephens & Co. v. AlbersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
- State v. . BarkleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.