State v. . BraggState v. . Bragg
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Smith
after stating the above. We think there was error committed in receiving evidence of the gleanings of the cotton left in the fields, and in the directions given to the jury as to its еffect.’ The subject matter of the larceny charged is “seed cotton” and “lint cotton,”.terms which, *690 unexplainеd, seem to designate the article, after it has been picked or taken from the plant, in its condition before and after its undergoing the process of separating the seed from the fibre or lint. In commerce it is sold in bоth states, and a contract of sale, describing it in either way, would undoubtedly be understood as meaning the gathered and not the ungathered article in the field, unless there аre other terms indicating a different intent. There is required a reasonable certainty in the designation of stolеn property to enable the defendant to know and meet the specific charge if he can, and tо protect himself if he cannot, from a second рrosecution for the same offence. State v. Clark, 8 Ired., 226; State v. Horan, Phil., 571.
Thus a chаrge of stealing two barrels of turpentine is not suppоrted by proof of the taking of that quantity from the box cut in thе tree to receive and hold the descending saр. State v. Moore, 11 Ired., 70.
Th,e error in admitting the evidence is repeated in the instructions to the jury as to its legal sufficiency and effeсt. Growing or matured cereal crops in the field arе not the subject of larceny at common law, beсause before severance they partakе of the nature of the realty and are not within the terms of the definition of the offence.
The felonious remоval of “growing, standing, or ungath-ered indian corn, wheat, cotton, potatoes and rice,” was made larceny by statute, and to the list of articles have been addеd terms of more comprehensive import — “ fruit, vegetаble or other product,” restricted to such as are “ cultivated for food or market.” Rev. Stat., ch. 34, § 24; Rev. Code, ch. 34, §21; and Bat. Rev., ch. 32, § 20.
But an indictment, admitting evidence in its support, uuder the statute, must designate the stolen article, аs it is there described, as growing, standing, .or ungathered in the field, and not by the simple namе it bears after being gathered. Without these superadded words, the charge must be un *691 derstood as referring to the cotton after it is picked and put to itself. And so an artiсle not specially mentioned in the act, but embraсed in the generic word “ product,” must not only be named, but dеscribed as .having been “ cultivated for food or markеt.” State v. Liles, 78 N. C., 496. This is in accordance with the adjudged cases. State v. Turner, 66 N. C., 618; State v. Krider, 78 N. C., 481; State v. Patrick, 79 N. C., 655; State v. House, 65 N. C., 315.
For the error in allowing the testimony of the gleaning of thе remnant of the crop left in the filed, and the directiоns given the jury as to its pertinency and sufficiency to‘sustain thе allegations in the bill, there must’ be a new trial, and the superior court should have so adjudged upon the appeal. The judgment of the affirmation is therefore reversed, and this will be certified to the end that further proceedings be had in accordance with this opinion.
Error. Venire de novo.