State v. Burt
| Decision Date | 30 June 1870 |
| Citation | 64 N.C. 619 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. SAMUEL BURT and others. |
A nugget of gold separated from the vein by natural causes, savors of the realty, and, so, is not a subject of larceny.
( Here, the nugget was found upon a loose pile of rocks, and was taken and carried away at one continued act.)
LARCENY, tried before Watts, J., at Spring Term 1870, of FRANKLIN Court.
There was a special verdict, finding: that there was a verbal contract between Burt and the owner of a gold mine, that the former might run a rocker in such mine, paying a certain rent; that the other defendants were working with Burt; that one of these employees found a nugget of gold lying upon the land of the owner of the mine, on the top of a rock pile, not a part of the proceeds of the rocker; and that, after consultation with the other defendants, it was appropriated to their own use, and was never accounted for to the owner.
His Honor thereupon gave judgment for the defendants, and the Solicitor for the State appealed.
Attorney-General, for the appellant .
Rogers & Batchelor, contra .
Nuggets of gold are lumps of native metal, and are often found separated from the original veins. When this separation is produced by natural causes, there is no severance from the realty, but such nuggets will pass under a conveyance, like ores and minerals which are embedded in the earth. When ores and minerals are taken out of mines with expense, skill and labor, to be converted into metals, or used for the purposes of trade and commerce, they become personal property, and are under the protection of the criminal law.
In England, ores, even before they are taken from the mines, are protected by highly penal statutes: St. 7 and 8 Geo. IV, amended by 24 and 25, Vict. Loose nuggets which are occasionally found in gullies and branches, and in woods and fields, are hardly considered by the law as the subjects of determinate property, until they are discovered and appropriated, and then they become personal goods, and are the subjects of larceny. In this respect they somewhat resemble treasure trove, waifs, &c., in the criminal law of England.
It is an ancient rule of the common law, that things which savor of, or adhere to realty, are not the subject of larceny. In this respect the common law was very defective, and did not afford sufficient protection to many valuable articles of personal property which were constructively annexed to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Flanders
... ... Burt, 64 N.C. 619. (2) The court erred in denying ... defendant's petition asking permission to prove that the ... grand jury that found the indictment was so unlawfully drawn ... and summoned as to constitute no grand jury, and hence their ... acts were void, and not merely voidable, and an ... ...
-
State v. Beck
...applied only to personal property, by making it applicable to the felonious taking and carrying away of chattels real. In State v. Burt, 64 N.C. 619, the court held that the defendant who found a nugget upon a loose pile of rock and carried it away was not guilty of larceny, evidently, from......
-
State v. Beck
...before applied only to personal property, by making it applicable to the felonious taking and carrying away of chattels real. In State v. Burt, 64 N. C. 619, the court held that the defendant who found a nugget upon a loose pile of rock and carried it away was not guilty of larceny, evident......