64 Miss. 77 | Miss. | 1886
delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no error in the instructions for the State, and the fifth instruction asked by appellant was properly refused.
It was not necessary that the animal stolen should have been removed from the premises of the owner. To remove him with the requisite felonious intent from one part of the premises to another, or from the spot or house where he was found, was a sufficient asportation. 2 Bish Crim. L., §§ 794, 806; 3 Greenleaf Ev., § 154.
On the facts shown it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial. Affirmed.