86 N.Y. 375, Shipply v. People

Citation:86 N.Y. 375
Party Name:WILLIAM H. SHIPPLY, Plaintiff in Error, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendant in Error.
Case Date:October 11, 1881
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 375

86 N.Y. 375

WILLIAM H. SHIPPLY, Plaintiff in Error,

v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Defendant in Error.

New York Court of Appeal

October 11, 1881

Argued Jun. 23, 1881.

Page 376

COUNSEL

William F. Kintzing for plaintiff in error. It is not larceny if the owner of personal property intends to part with the property and delivers possession absolutely, although he has been induced to part with it by fraudulent means. (Hildebrand v. People, 56 N.Y. 398; Smith v. People, 53 Id. 111; McDonald v. People, 43 Id. 61; Kelly v. People, 13 N.Y.S. Ct. 509; Wolfstein v. People, 1 Id. 121; Weyman v. People, 11 Id. 511; Rex v. Hunt, 8 Cox's Cr. Cas. 405; Lewer v. Comm., 15 S. & R. 93; Roscoe's Crim. Ev. [ 7th ed.] 626-636; Wharton's Am. Cr. Law [5th rev. ed.], 1780; Comm. v. James, 2 Bennett & H. Lead. Cr. Cas. 204; 2 East's Pl. Cr. 668; Blunt v. Comm., 4 Leigh, 689; Reg. v. Thomas, 9 Carr. & Payne, 741; Reg. v. Jackson, 1 Moody's C. C. 119; Mowery v. Walsh, 8 Cow. 228; Reg. v. Barnes, 2 Den. C. C. 59; Reg. v. Adams, Russell & Ry. C. C. 225; Reg. v. Nicholson, 2 East's Pl. Cr. 669; 2 Russell on Crimes, 35 [6th ed.]; Archibald's Crim. Pl. 895.) The intent to steal the goods and chattels must exist when it cometh to the hands or possession. (People v. Wilson, 39 N.Y. 460; People v. Anderson, 14 Johns. 294; People v. Abrams, 13 N.Y. 491; People v. Call, 1 Denio, 120; 3 Coke's Inst. 107; 1 Leach, 411;

Page 377

Rex v. Leigh, 2 East's Pl. Cr. 553; Rankin's Cas. [Russ. & Ry.] 44; 1 Hale's P. C. 504; 1 Hawkins' P. C., chap. 33,§ 2; 4 Black. Com. 232; Roscoe's Crim. Ev. 553-541; Barbour Crim. Law, 153; Wharton's Am. Crim. Law [5th ed.], 1752; Archibald's Crim. Plead. 186-188; 2 Starkie's Ev. 606.) It is the mind that makes the taking of another's goods to be a felony, or a bare trespass only. (1 Hale's P. C. 509; Smith v. People, 53 N.Y. 111.) There was no "trespass" in taking the property, and without which there can be no larceny. (McDonald v. The People, 43 N.Y. 561; Hildebrand v. The People, 56 Id. 396; 1 Hawk. P. C., § 1, 208; 2 Russ. on Crimes, 35 [6th ed.]; Reg. v. Middleton, 12 Cox's Cr. Cas. 269; 2 East's Pl. Cr., § 116, chap. 16; Mowery v. Walsh, 8 Cow. 238, 242; Saltus v. Everett, 20 Wend. 267-279; Ash v. Putnam, 1 Hill, 302; Ross v. People, 5 Id. 294; Lewis v. Palmer, Hill & D. Supp. 68; Peabody v. Fenton, 3 Barb. 171-178; Felter v. The State, 9 Yerg. 397; Regina v. Barnes, 1 Eng. L. & Eq. 679; Comm. v. Lewer, 15 S. & R. 93, 94; Roscoe's Cr...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP