Legal Opinion

Haywood v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1883PublishedCited by 4 opinions

APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court. Hon. R. B. Rutherford Circuit Judge. There is nothing in the statutes of this State to bringmocldng birds .within the classification of such property as could be the subject of larceny, and the rule of the common law must prevail. — 2 Blackstone, 391 ; 2 Kent, 348; 2 Bishop, sec. 684-, 1 Wharton, p, 675; 48 Ala., 161;• 19 Am. Dee., 348; 20 lb., 775. Anything that is recognized as personal property by law, 'is the subject of larceny.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court. Hon. R. B. Rutherford Circuit Judge. There is nothing in the statutes of this State to bringmocldng birds .within the classification of such property as could be the subject of larceny, and the rule of the common law must prevail. — 2 Blackstone, 391 ; 2 Kent, 348; 2 Bishop, sec. 684-, 1 Wharton, p, 675; 48 Ala., 161;• 19 Am. Dee., 348; 20 lb., 775. Anything that is recognized as personal property by law, 'is the subject of larceny. A tamed mocking bird is the subject of ownership and of taxation under the definition in • sec. 1, Act April 28th, 1873;…

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION.

Larceny, at common law, is defined to be “the felonious-taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another.” —Blackstone.

By the common law there can be no larceny of animalsferae naturae, or wild animals, unreclaimed. When reclaimed they become the subject of this offense, provided they are fit for food, not otherwise.

MocMng Sector. But the English courts made exceptions to the rule, that. reclaimed animals, to be the subject of larceny, must be fit for food. Thus the tamed hawk was held to be the subject-of larceny, though unfit for food, because it served to-amuse the English…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. StanfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
  2. E. A. Stephens & Co. v. AlbersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1927
  3. State v. SowardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
  4. Strong v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API