unless by virtue of some statute.90 The principle also applies where a person on the shore shoots at and kills a person in a vessel on the sea. In such a case, the homicide is committed on the vessel, and is within the admiralty jurisdiction.91 And where a person on one ship shoots at and kills a person on another ship, the homicide is committed on the latter, and it is punishable by the nation to which the latter belongs, but not by the nation to which the former belongs.92 And if poison is prescribed and furnished to a person in one county, and he carries it into another county, and takes it there in accordance with the directions, and is poisoned and dies there, the administering is consummated, and the crime is committed, in that county.93 But a person who, being in one state, sends poisoned candy by mail to a person in another state, and causes his death in the latter, may be prosecuted in the former state, where its statutes provide that persons who commit, in whole or in part, any crime in the state, are liable to punishment under its laws.94 § 314. Larceny-Taking in one county and carrying into another. Both at common law, and in many jurisdictions by express provision of the statute, if goods are taken in one county and carried into another, animo furandi, it is larceny in the latter as well as in the former, and the thief may be prosecuted in either.95 Under such circumstances the carrying into the county into which the goods are 901 Hale P. C. 475; State v. Hall, 114 N. C. 909, 19 S. E. 602, 41 Am. St. Rep. 822. 91 Rex v. Coombs, 1 Leach C. C. 388. 92 United States v. Davis, 2 Sumn. 482, Fed. Cas. No. 14,932. Compare Reg. v. Keyn, L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 63, 13 Cox C. C. 403. 93 Robbins v. State, 8 Ohio St. 131. 94 People v. Botkin, 132 Cal. 231, 64 Pac. 286, 84 Am. St. Rep. 39; s. c., 9 Cal. App. 244, 98 Pac. 861. 95 Alabama. Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40; Kidd v. State, 83 Ala. 58, 3 So. 442; Whizenant v. State, 71 Ala. 383. Arkansas. State v. Alexander, 118 Ark. 357, 176 S. W. 315. California. People v. Prather, 134 Cal. 386, 66 Pac. 483, 724; People taken is regarded as a continuance of the original trespass, so that there is in that county a taking, an asportation, and a felonious intent.96 As a rule, the indictment may either charge that the property was stolen in the county where the prosecution is instituted, without alleging that it was stolen in another county and brought there,97 Me. 181, 77 Am. Dec. 254; State v. Douglas, 17 Me. 193, 35 Am. Dec. 248. Massachusetts. Com. v. Friedman, 188 Mass. 308, 74 N. E. 464; Com. v. Dewitt, 10 Mass. 154; Com. v. Rand, 7 Metc. 475, 41 Am. Dec. 455. Mississippi. Johnson v. State, 47 Miss. 671. Nebraska. Van Buren v. State, 65 Neb. 223, 91 N. W. 201; Hurlburt v. State, 52 Neb. 428, 72 N. W. 471. Nevada. State v. Brown, 8 Nev. 208. New Mexico. State v. Meeks, 25 N. M. 231, 180 Pac. 295. New York. Haskins v. People, 16 N. Y. 344; People v. Carter, 72 Misc. 631, 132 N. Y. Supp. 250. North Carolina. State v. Buchanan, 130 N. C. 660, 41 S. E. 107; State v. Groves, 44 N. C. 191. Oklahoma. Cox v. Territory, 2 Okla. Cr. 668, 104 Pac. 378. Oregon. State v. Johnson, 2 Ore. 115. Tennessee. State v. Mathews, 87 Tenn. 689, 11 S. W. 793. Texas. Park v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 267, 178 S. W. 516; Rogers v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 84, 153 S. W. 856; Dugat v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. 46, 148 S. W. 789; Hoffman v. State (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 309; Connell v. State, 2 Tex. App. 422. Virginia. Strouther v. Com., 92 Va. 789, 22 S. E. 852, 53 Am. St. Rep. 852; Com. v. Cousins, 2 Leigh 708. Wisconsin. Powell v. State, 52 Wis. 217, 9 N. W. 17. England. Anon., Year Book 7 Hen. IV, 43, pl. 9; Anon., Year Book 4 Hen. VII, 5, pl. 1; 3 Inst. 113; 1 Hale P. C. 507, 536; 4 Bl. Com. 305; Rex v. Parkin, 1 Moody C. C. 45; Rex v. Smith, Ryan & M. 295. It is now so provided by the statute of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, § 114. Under a statute providing that defendant may be prosecuted in any county in which he had possession of the property, he cannot be prosecuted in a county in which he never had possession of it. Com. v. Friedman, 188 Mass. 308, 74 N. E. 464. 961 Hale P. C. 507. See also the following decisions: Arkansas. State v. Alexander, 118 Ark. 357, 176 S. W. 315. California. People v. Sing, 42 Cal. App. 385, 183 Pac. 865. Indiana. See Martin v. State, 176 Ind. 317, 95 N. E. 1001. Maine. State v. Somerville, 21 Me. 14. New Mexico. State v. Meeks, 25 N. M. 231, 180 Pac. 295. 97 Alabama. Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40. California. People v. Sing, 42 Cal. App. 385, 183 Pac. 865; People v. Tyree, 21 Cal. App. 701, 132 Pac. 784. Nebraska. Hurlburt v. State, 52 Neb. 428, 72 N. W. 471. New York. Haskins v. People, 16 N. Y. 344; People v. Carter, 72 Misc. 631, 132 N. Y. Supp. 250. Texas. Hoffman V. State (Tex. Cr.), 42 S. W. 309. In Mississippi the indictment must or may charge that the larceny was committed in the county where the first taking occurred and that the stolen property was brought into the county where the crime is prosecuted.98 The principle applies as well to the taking of property which is made the subject of larceny by statute, as outstanding crops, fixtures, and choses in action, for example, as it does to property which is the subject of larceny at common law.99 And it also applies although the goods are altered in character before being carried from one county into another,1 and though a long time elapses between the original theft and the carrying of the goods into the other county. But a prosecution for compound larceny, such as larceny from the person or from a dwelling house, will lie only in the county where the actual charge that the property was stolen in the county into which the goods were taken. It is insufficient to merely allege that they were stolen in the other county and brought there. Johnson v. State, 47 Miss. 671. And see Haskins v. People, 16 N. Y. 344. 98 Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40; People v. Prather, 134 Cal. 386, 66 Pac. 483, 724; People v. Sing, 42 Cal. App. 385, 183 Pac. 865. 99 State V. Alexander, 118 Ark. 357, 176 S. W. 315; Com. v. Rand, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 475, 41 Am. Dec. 455; Rex v. Parkin, 1 Moody C. C. 45. In Reg. v. Newland, 2 Cox C. C. 283, it was held that a man who kills an animal in one county, and carries the carcass into another county, is guilty of stealing, taking, and driving away the animal in the latter county; but that a man who kills an animal in one county, and carries the carcass into another, is not guilty of killing the animal with intent to steal it in the latter county. The fact that goods stolen by a person in one county, and brought into another, were so brought by accomplices of the original thief, and not by the original thief personally, does not prevent his indictment in the latter county if he is afterwards personally concerned there in the custody or disposal of them. Com. v. Dewitt, 10 Mass. 154. Sending stolen goods by railway to a confederate in another county has been held a larceny in that county, on the ground that the constructive possession remains in the thief. Reg. v. Rogers, L. R. 1 C. C. 136, 11 Cox C. C. 38. As to statutes making such property subject to larceny, see § 737 et seq., infra. 1 It has been applied, for example, to stealing live birds or animals in one county or state, and carrying them into another county or state after killing them, Com. v. Beaman, 8 Gray (Mass.) 497; Rex v. Edwards, Russ. & R. 497; and to the stealing of a brass furnace in one county and carrying it into another county after breaking it to pieces, Rex v. Halloway, 1 Car. & P. 127. The larceny in the latter county is of the goods in their new state, and they must be so described in the indictment. Com. v. Beaman, 8 Gray (Mass.) 497; State v. Somerville, 21 Me. 14; Rex v. Halloway, 1 Car. & P. 127; Rex v. Edwards, Russ. & R. 497. 2 Rex v. Parkin, 1 Moody C. C. 45. overt act of the taking was committed.3 And it has been held that a statute permitting one who commits larceny in a railroad car while en route to be prosecuted in any county through which the car passes is void.4 § 315. Taking in one state and carrying into another. In the absence of governing statute, some courts have held that the carrying of property stolen in one state or territory into another state or territory is not larceny in the latter.5 But most of the courts have held that it is larceny in the state into which the goods are carried. 3 Smith V. State, 55 Ala. 59; Nichols v. State, 28 Tex. App. 105, 12 S. W. 500; Gage v. State, 22 Tex. App. 123, 2 S. W. 638. And see Rogers v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 84, 153 S. W. 856. At common law when burglary is accompanied by larceny, the burglary can be prosecuted only in the county where the offense was committed, but the larceny may be prosecuted in any county into which the prisoner took the stolen property. Haskins v. People, 16 N. Y. 344. By statute in some states the burglary may also be prosecuted in any county into which the stolen goods are taken. See § 315, infra. 4 The offense cannot be said to have been committed in contemplation of law in each of said counties as in a case where property is stolen in one county and taken into another. People v. Brock, 149 Mich. 464, 112 N. W. 1116, 119 Am. St. Rep. 684. Compare People v. Staples, 91 Cal. 23, 27 Pac. 523. 5 District of Columbia. Brown v. United States, 35 App. Cas. 548. Georgia. Lee v. State, 64 Ga. 203, 37 Am. Rep. 67; Golden v. State, 2 Ga. App. 440, 58 S. E. 557. Indiana. Beal v. State, 15 Ind. 378. Louisiana. State v. Reonnals, 14 La. Ann. 278. Nebraska. In re Loomis (Ex parte Sullivan), 84 Neb. 493, 121 N. W. 456, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 750, 18 Ann. Cas. 1024; Van Buren v. State, 65 Neb. 223, 91 N. W. 201; People v. Loughridge, 1 Neb. 11, 93 Am. Dec. 325. New Jersey. State v. Le Blanch, 31 N. J. L. 82. New York. People v. Schenck, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 479; People v. Gardner, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 477. North Carolina. State v. Buchanan, 130 N. C. 660, 41 S. E. 107; State v. Brown, 1 Hayw. (N. C.) 100, 1 Am. Dec. 548. Pennsylvania. Simmons v. Com., 5 Binn. (Pa.) 617. Tennessee. Simpson v. State, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 456. Virginia. Strouther v. Com., 92 Va. 789, 22 S. E. 852, 53 Am. St. Rep. 852. And see La Vaul v. State, 40 Ala. 44; Morrissey v. People, 11 Mich. 327. 6 Connecticut. State v. Cummings, 33 Conn. 260, 89 Am. Dec. 208; State v. Ellis, 3 Conn. 185, 8 Am. Dec. 175. Illinois. Stinson v. People, 43 Ill. 397; Meyers v. People, 26 Ill. 173. Iowa. State v. Bennett, 14 Iowa 479. Kentucky. Klotz v. Cook, 184 Ky. 735, 212 S. W. 917; Hobbs v. Com., In most of the states, the question is now set at rest by statutes expressly declaring it to be larceny to bring into the state goods stolen in another state. And these statutes have been held constitutional. They do not undertake to punish the offense committed in the other state, but punish the bringing of the stolen goods into the state." This has also been held to be the rule where the statute provides for the punishment of crimes committed elsewhere but con 156 Ky. 847, 162 S. W. 104; Tramwill v. Com., 148 Ky. 624, 147 S. W. 36, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 207. Maine. See State v. Underwood, 49 Me. 181, 77 Am. Dec. 254. Maryland. Worthington v. State, 58 Md. 403, 42 Am. Rep. 338. And see Cummings v. State, 1 Har. & J. 340. Massachusetts. Com. v. White, 123 Mass. 430, 25 Am. Rep. 116; Com. v. Holder, 9 Gray 7; Com. v. Uprichard, 3 Gray 434, 63 Am. Dec. 762. Mississippi. Watson v. State, 36 Miss. 593. Nevada. State v. Newman, 9 Nev. 48, 16 Am. Rep. 3. Ohio. Hamilton v. State, 11 Ohio 435. Oregon. State v. Johnson, 2 Ore. 115. South Carolina. State v. Hill, 19 S. C. 435. Vermont. See State v. Morrill, 68 Vt. 60, 33 Atl. 1070, 54 Am. St. Rep. 870. In Nevada it has been held that, where goods are stolen in one state, and brought into another, mere possession in the latter state with intent to steal is not sufficient to constitute larceny in the latter state; but that a new and distinct larceny is committed if there is any removal or asportation of the goods animo furandi. State v. Bouton, 26 Nev. 34; State v. Newman, 9 Nev. 48, 16 Am. Rep. 3. 7 See the statutes of the various states, and the following cases: Alabama. La Vaul v. State, 40 Ala. 44; Alsey v. State, 39 Ala. 664; State v. Seay, 3 Stew. 123, 20 Am. Dec. 66. Arkansas. Wilson V. State, 97 Ark. 412, 134 S. W. 623; State v. Johnson, 38 Ark. 568. California. People v. Staples, 91 Cal. 23, 27 Pac. 523. Kansas. State v. White, 76 Kan. 654, 92 Pac. 829, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 556; State v. Suppe, 60 Kan. 566, 57 Pac. 106; State v. Price, 55 Kan. 606, 40 Pac. 1000; McFarland V. State, 4 Kan. 68. Kentucky. (Ky.) 153. Michigan. People v. Williams, 24 Mich. 156, 9 Am. Rep. 119. Mississippi. Miss. 373. Ferrill v. Com., 1 Duv. Norris v. State, 33 Missouri. State v. Butler, 67 Mo. 59; State v. Williams, 35 Mo. 229; Hemmaker v. State, 12 Mo. 453, 51 Am. Dec. 172. Montana. State v. Kief, 12 Mont. 92, 29 Pac. 654, 15 L. R. A. 722. New York. People v. Burke, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 129. Oklahoma. Barclay V. United States, 11 Okla. 503, 69 Pac. 798. Tennessee. State v. Mathews, 87 Tenn. 689, 11 S. W. 793. Texas. Beard v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 522, 78 S. W. 348; McKenzie v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 568, 25 S. W. 426, 40 Am. St. Rep. 795; Clark v. State, 27 Tex. App. 405, 11 S. W. 374. |