Baldwin v. PeopleBaldwin v. People
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Smith
delivered the opinion of the Court :
Thе plaintiff in” error was indicted аnd convicted of larceny, at the October term of the Cook Circuit Court, 1836. The indictment сharged him with feloniously stealing and carrying away one horse, the proper goods аnd chattels of one Ashbel Steele. On the trial, the prisonеr’s counsel asked the Court to instruct the jury, “That if they believed from the evidence that the рroperty stolen was a gelding or a mare, that in point оf law the indictment was not sustainеd,” which the Court refused to do. This is alleged for error. There сan be no doubt that the refusal was proper. The term horse, used in the indictment, is descriptive of the genus of the animal, and not of the sex or chаracter changed by artificial means. The animal was still а “ horse,” no matter what the sеx, and so was it still a horse, althоugh it might be a gelding. The second ground of objection raised, that the Court refused to instruct the jury “ Thаt if they believed the animal was riden, driven, or led away, the proof did not sustain the indictment,” is withоut reason to sustain it, and cannot be entitled “to consideration. It cannot be exрected that the proоf is to correspond with the litеral interpretation of the words, and that the party, because he did not literally carry away the animal, is not guilty.
The judgmеnt of the Circuit Court of Cook сounty is hereby affirmed, and the sаid Court are directed to сause the execution оf the judgment and sentence of the said Court to be carriеd into effect without delay. The defendants in error are also to recover costs in this Court attending the prosecution of the writ of error, and have execution therefor.
Judgment affirmed.