State v. Beck

• Decision Date: 24 April 1906
• Citation: 53 S.E. 843,141 N. C. 829
• Parties: STATE. v. BECK.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

53 S.E. 843

141 N. C. 829

STATE.

v.BECK.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 24, 1906.

Larceny — Elements of Offense — Nature of Property—Statutory Provisions.

A brass railing attached partly to the freehold and partly to an engine in an ice plant, the engine being attached to the freehold, is within Revisal 1905, § 3511, providing that if any person shall enter on the lands of another and carry off any "wood or other kind of property whatsoever, growing or being thereon, with felonious intent, he shall be guilty of larceny.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Larceny, § 14.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Peebles, Judge.

Lee Beck was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

J. S. Grogan, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

CLARK, C. J. The defendant Is Indicted for the larceny of 30 pounds of brass railing attached partly to the freehold and partly to an engine in an ice plant the engine being attached to the freehold. Revisal 1905, § 3511, provides: "If any person, not being the present owner or bona fide claimant thereof, shall willfully and unlawfully enter upon the lands of another and carry off, or be engaged in carrying off any wood or other kind of property whatsoever, growing or being thereon, * * * if the act is done with felonious intent, shall be guilty of larceny; * * * if not done with such intent he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Had the act provided "carrying off any wood or other kind of property, growing or being thereon, " the rules of construction would restrict "other kind of property" to property of like kind with wood. But the addition of the word "whatsoever" shows a clear intent of the Legislature to take this case out of such rule of construction. In the language of State v. Vosburg, 111 N. C. 720, 16 S. E. 392, "the obvious intent of the act was to prevent the willful and unlawful entry upon land of another, and the taking and carrying away of such articles as were not, at common law, or by previous statute, the subject of larceny." It Is added that money would not come under the words of the statute, for the articles taken must be "of like character with that mentioned by name, the character being that of chattels real, connected in some way with the land, or which once had been so connected and were now severed therefrom." Besides money had been made "by previous statute, the subject of larceny." The article here taken comes within the very scope and purport of the act which was to cure a defect in the law of larceny, which had before applied only to personal property, by making it...