28 Cal. 380 | Cal. | 1865
By the Court,
Indictment for grand larceny.
The appeal is taken from the judgment alone.
The defendant requested the Court to instruct the jury as follows: “ The jury must be satisfied, from the evidence,
It is said by Wharton in his treatise on American Criminal Law (Vol. 2, Sec. 1,781): “If the taking be fraudulent, however, it is not necessary that it should be lucri causa and with intent wholly to deprive the owner of the property and he cites the case of R. v. Cabbage, Rus. and Ry. 292, which was an indictment for larceny in stealing a horse, which the prisoner, to screen an accomplice, took from the prosecutor’s stable and backed into a coal pit and killed; and it being objected that this was not larceny, because the taking was «not with an intention to convert the property to his own use, a majority of the Judges held that it was larceny. And the same author says, that the doctrine has received in England several subsequent emphatic recognitions, and he cites several cases to that point. Although the doctrine has been repudi
The second and third instructions asked for by the defendant were properly refused for the reason stated by the Court—■ that they were not required by or founded on any part of the testimony in the cause. v
Judgment affirmed.