State v. . Harris

64 N.C. 127

Opinion

Reade, J.

The object of describing property stolen by its quality and quantity, is that it may appear to the Court to be of value. Tbe object of describing it by its usual name, ownership, &o., is to enable tbe defendant to make bis defence, and to protect himself against a second conviction.

In the case under consideration, tbe substance of tbe charge, is, steabng flour — fifty pounds of flour — from which it is apparent that it was of value; and the exact quantity and value need not be proved. The objection made, is, that it was a u sac 7c of flour;” by which we understand flour in a sack or bag. If the defendant stole the flour, it makes no difference whether it was in a sack, or bag, or box, or lying about loose. It was of value, and its character was not changed. An indictment charged the stealing of “ a parcel of oats held to be sufficient. So another indictment charged the stealing of a “ hogthe proof was a shoat: held to be sufficient. But proof of stealing mutton will not support a charge of stealing a sheep, for the things are different.

In the case under consideration, the proof of stealing a sack of flour, i. e., flour in a sack or bag, sustains the charge of stealing flour, and it was not necessary to prove its exact weight or value. . , ■

There is error. This will be certified, to the end that there may be judgment in the Court below upon the verdict, according to law.

Pee Cubiam. Error.