1 N.Y. Crim. 83 | NY | 1882
The $20 gold coin was intrusted to the relator for the single and specific purpose of having it changed into other money, to be returned to the prosecutor. The relator had no property or interest in the coin, and the prosecutor never intended to part with his property therein. The relator left his restaurant with the coin under the pretense of obtaining change, and immediately gambled it away and did not return. These facts warranted the jury in finding that, when he left the presence of the prosecutor, he took the coin with him with the intent to steal it. This, within all the authorities, except the one hereinafter referred to, justified his conviction for larceny. (Hildebrand
v. The People,
The learned presiding justice, who delivered the opinion of the General Term in this case, fell into an error in supposing that the doctrine of the case of Reg. v. Thomas had been adopted by this court as the law of this State. In the case ofHildebrand v. The People (
In Loomis et al. v. The People (
In The People v. McDonald (
Again, in Smith v. The People (
The rule of Reg. v. Thomas was never adopted by this court, is not good law, and should be disregarded.
Judgment of the General Term should be reversed and the judgment of the Special Sessions affirmed.
All concur.
Judgment accordingly.