State v. Boyce

Supreme Court of Arkansas

State v. Boyce

44 S.W. 1043, 65 Ark. 82, 1898 Ark. LEXIS 36

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 26, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 44 S.W. 1043 (State v. Boyce) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Boyce, 44 S.W. 1043, 65 Ark. 82, 1898 Ark. LEXIS 36 (Ark. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Hughes, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The indictment in this case charges only petit larceny, which is only a misdemeanor, the value of the money stolen being stated at less than ten dollars. Sand. So H. Dig., § 1699. It was therefore unnecessary to charge that the taking, etc., was feloniously done.

It is true that the definition of larceny, according to our statute, is as follows: “Larceny is the felonious stealing, taking and carrying, riding or driving away, the personal property of another.” Sand. So H. Dig., § 1694. Since the p-.ssage of this statute, a distinction has been made between grand and petit larceny. See act March 22, 1881 (p. 144). The word “steal” has a uniform signification, and in common as well as legal parlance means “the felonious taking ‘and carrying away of the personal goods of another.” State v. Chambers, 2 Green (Iowa), 311.

“Theft” is a popular name for larceny. People v. Donahue, 84 N. Y. 442. See Skipwith v. State, 8 Texas App. 138,

The indictment charges that the defendant “unlawfully did steal,” etc. This is sufficient. The general description of the money charged to have been stolen is sufficient, under § 1717,-Sand. & H. Dig. (Act of 1893.)

Reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hughes, J.,

(after stating the facts.) The indictment in this case charges only petit larceny, which is only a misdemeanor, the value of the money stolen being stated at less than ten dollars. Sand. So H. Dig., § 1699. It was therefore unnecessary to charge that the taking, etc., was feloniously done.

It is true that the definition of larceny, according to our statute, is as follows: “Larceny is the felonious stealing, taking and carrying, riding or driving away, the personal property of another.” Sand. So H. Dig., § 1694. Since the p-.ssage of this statute, a distinction has been made between grand and petit larceny. See act March 22, 1881 (p. 144). The word “steal” has a uniform signification, and in common as well as legal parlance means “the felonious taking ‘and carrying away of the personal goods of another.” State v. Chambers, 2 Green (Iowa), 311.

“Theft” is a popular name for larceny. People v. Donahue, 84 N. Y. 442. See Skipwith v. State, 8 Texas App. 138,

The indictment charges that the defendant “unlawfully did steal,” etc. This is sufficient. The general description of the money charged to have been stolen is sufficient, under § 1717,-Sand. & H. Dig. (Act of 1893.)

Reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 S.W. 1043, 65 Ark. 82, 1898 Ark. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boyce-ark-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack