Lundy v. The State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 60 Ga. 143 |
| Parties | Lundy v. The State. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal law. Before Judge Grice. Bibb Superior Court. October Term, 1877.
Lundy was convicted of simple larceny. He moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he excepted. For the other facts see the opinion.
H. C. Erwin; Dessau & Strohecker, for plaintiff in error.
C. L. Bartlett, solictor general, by W. A. Lofton, for the state.
The sole question made in this case is whether or not the asportation of the cow alleged to have been stolen is sufficiently proven to authorize the verdict.
The facts are, that the cow was shot in the woods, and when about half skinned, the defendant and his companion became frightened and left the carcass of the cow before it was wholly skinned, or any part of the cow or skin actually carried off the ground where the cow was shot.
The sum of the authorities is to the effect, that whilst theremust be a carrying away of the corpus delicti to complete *the larceny, the slightest change of location, whereby complete dominion of the article is transferred from the true owner to the trespasser, is sufficient evidence of the asportation: 2 Russell on Crimes, 152, and cases cited there.
This cow was alive, in the woods, under the dominion and in the legal possession of her owner. Whilst in this condition, she was shot by the defendant, who, with his companion, took possession of her, handled her, moved her about sufficiently to ac-complish the task of skinning her to a considerable extent, had complete dominion over her, and would have taken her off, skin and all, in all human probability, but for their fright at the barking of a dog, and the apprehended approach of a number of men. The position of the cow must have been changed from that in which her owner left her free to move. If she was shot standing or running, it is clear that she changed position; if she was lying down, her position, in all likelihood, was changed when she was shot; in the handling her to be skinned, as far as they had progressed, the trespassers must have moved the carcass about somewhat; they had taken her out of the dominion of her owner, and deprived her not only of her freedom of locomotion, but of her position, where her owner willed that she should remain at her will; and their act of skinning her is conclusive that her being shot by them was not merely malicious mischief, but that the shot was fired with the felonious intent to appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Royal v. State, s. 82-1050
...96 Fla. 232, 118 So. 20 (1928). 2 Burdick, The Law of Crime § 500 at 266 n. 40 (1946).5 Edmonds v. State, 70 Ala. 8 (1881); Lundy v. State, 60 Ga. 143 (1878); Delk v. State, 64 Miss. 77, 1 So. 9 (1886); State v. Williams, 199 Mo. 137, 97 S.W. 562 (1906); Harrison v. People, 50 N.Y. 518 (187......
-
Gutierrez v. State
...without the consent of the owner constitutes a taking. See Crawford v. State, 90 Ga. 701(1), 17 S.E. 628 (1892). See also Lundy v. State, 60 Ga. 143–144 (1878) (defendant's movement of dead cow owned by another and over which defendant had complete dominion, in order to skin the cow, was su......
-
Stanley v. State
...slightest asportation, and it is not necessary, to complete the crime, that the goods be removed from off the land of the owner. Lundy v. State, 60 Ga. 143; Johnson v. State, 9 Ga.App. 409(2), 71 S.E. 507. The goods which were the subject matter of the transaction had been removed from the ......
-
People v. Rivera
...from the true owner to the thief is sufficient evidence of the taking away." Lardner, 300 Ill. at 267-68, 133 N.E. 375, citing Lundy v. State (1878), 60 Ga. 143. As stated, the fact that the article is not taken from the owner's premises is immaterial. (Baker, 365 Ill. at 332, 6 N.E.2d 665.......