State v. . Butler
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The defendants were indicted for larceny at common law in stealing a cow, and on the trial at the Fall Term, 1870, of the Superior Court of Bertie County, before his Honor, ■Judge Pool, it was proved that the cow was badly shot, and her ears were cut off.
Read the full summary
The defendants were indicted for larceny at common law in stealing a cow, and on the trial at the Fall Term, 1870, of the Superior Court of Bertie County, before his Honor, ■Judge Pool, it was proved that the cow was badly shot, and her ears were cut off. The defendants’ counsel contended that no larceny of the cow had been committed, and asked ■his Honor so to instruct the jury, but he charged them that if they believed the defendants had shot the cow down with intent to steal her, and in the attempt to appropriate her feloniously to their use had cut off her ears, they were guilty of…
1Opinion of the CourtDick, J.
Cattle in the range are in the constructive possession of the owner, and are the subjects of larceny. When it is larceny to steal the animal itself, it is so to steal its product ; as to take milk from a cow or to pluck wool from the backs of sheep, if done animo fwrandi. Martin's case, 1 Leach 171; but the articles taken must be set out eo nom■ine in the indictment. To cut off and take away the ears or tail of a cow, might be malicious mischief, or might be indictable under the Act of 1866, ch. 57 ; but it would not be larceny, as they are of no value as articles of property. It is certain…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. . AlexanderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
- State v. . FulfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- People v. RameyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- People v. WilcoxinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924