Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
See also:LARCENY (an See also:adaptation of Fr. larcin, O. Fr. larrecin, from See also:Lat. latrocinium, See also:theft, latio, robber) , the unlawful taking and carrying away of things See also:personal, with See also:intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same . The See also:term See also:theft, sometimes used as a synonym of See also:larceny, is in reality a broader term, applying to all cases of depriving another of his See also:property whether by removing or withholding it, and includes larceny, See also:robbery, See also:cheating, See also:embezzlement, See also:breach of See also:trust, &c . Larceny is, in See also:modern legal systems, universally treated as a See also:crime, but the conception of it as a crime is not one belonging to the earliest See also:stage of See also:law . To its latest See also:period See also:Roman law regarded larceny or theft (furtum) as a delict prima facie pursued by a See also:civil remedy—the actio furti for a See also:penalty, the vindicatio or condictio for the stolen property itself or its value . In later times, a criminal remedy to meet the graver crimes gradually See also:grew up by the See also:side of the civil, and in the See also:time of Justinian the criminal remedy, where it existed, took See also:precedence of the civil (See also:Cod. iii . 8 . 4) . But to the last criminal proceedings could only be taken in serious cases, e.g. against stealers of See also:cattle (abigei) or the clothes of bathers (balnearii) . The See also:punishment was See also:death, banishment, or labour in the mines or on public See also:works . In the See also:main the Roman law coincides with the See also:English law . The See also:definition as given in the Institutes (iv . 1 . 1) is " furtum est contrectatio rei fraudulosa, vel ipsius rei, vel etiam ejus usus possessionisve," to which the See also:Digest (xlvii . 2 . 1, 3) adds " lucri faciendi gratia." The earliest English definition, that of See also:Bracton (15ob), runs thus: " furtum est secundum leges contrectatio rei alienae fraudulenta cum animo furandi invito illo domino cujus res fuerit." Bracton omits the " lucri faciendi gratia " of the Roman definition, because in English law the See also:motive is immaterial,) and the " usus ejus possessionisve," because the definition includes an intent to deprive the owner of his property permanently . The " animo furandi " and " invito domino " of Bracton's definition are expansions for the See also:sake of greater clearness . They seem to have been implied in Roman law . Furtum is on the whole a more comprehensive term than larceny . This 1 Thus destruction of a See also:letter by a servant, with a view of sup-pressing inquiries into his or her See also:character, makes the servant guilty of larceny in English law . difference no doubt arises from the tendency to extend the See also:bounds of a delict and to limit the bounds of a crime . Thus it was furtum (but it would not be theft at English See also:common law) to use a See also:deposit of See also:pledge contrary to the wishes of the owner, to retain goods found, or to steal a human being, such as a slave or filius familias (a See also:special See also:form of furtum called plagium) . The latter would be in English law an See also:abduction under certain circumstances but not a theft . One of two married persons could not commit furtum as against the other, but larceny may be so committed in See also:England since the Married See also:Women's Property See also:Act 1882 . As a furtum was merely a delict, the obligatio ex delicto could be extinguished by agreement between the parties; this cannot be done in England . In another direction English law is more considerate of the rights of third parties than was Roman . The thief can give a See also:good See also:title to stolen goods; in Roman law he could not do so, except in the single See also:case of a hereditas acquired by usucapio . The development of the law of furtum at See also:Rome is historically interesting, for even in its latest period is found a relic of one of the most See also:primitive theories of law adopted by courts of See also:justice: " They took as their See also:guide the measure of vengeance likely to be exacted by an aggrieved See also:person under the circumstances of the case " (See also:Maine, See also:Ancient Law, ch. x.) . This explains the See also:reason of the See also:division of furtum into manifestum and nec manifestum . The See also:manifest thief was one taken red-handed—" taken with the manner," in the See also:language of old English law . The Twelve Tables denounced the punishment of death against the manifest thief, for that would be the penalty demanded by the indignant owner in whose See also:place the See also:judge stood . The severity of this penalty was afterwards mitigated by the See also:praetor, who substituted for it the See also:payment of quadruple the value of the thing stolen . The same penalty was also given by the praetor in case of theft from a See also:fire or a See also:wreck, or of prevention of See also:search . The Twelve Tables mulcted the non-manifest thief in See also:double the value of the thing stolen . The actions for penalties were in addition to the See also:action for the stolen goods themselves or their value . The quadruple and double penalties still remain in the legislation of Justinian . The search for stolen goods, as it existed in the time of Gaits, was a survival of a period when the injured person was, as in the case of See also:summons (in fits vocatio), his own executive officer .
Such a search, by the Twelve Tables, might be conducted in the See also:house of the supposed thief by the owner in person, naked except for a cincture, and carrying a platter in his See also:hand, safeguards apparently against any possibility of his making a false See also:charge by depositing some of his own property on his See also:neighbour's premises
.
This mode of search became obsolete before the time of Justinian
.
Robbery (See also:bona vi rapta) was violence added to furtum
.
By the actio vi bonorum raptorum quadruple the value could be recovered if the action were brought within a See also:year, only the value if brought after the expiration of a year
.
The quadruple value included the stolen thing itself, so that the penalty was in effect only a triple one
.
It was inclusive, and not cumulative, as in furtum
.
In England theft or larceny appears to have been very See also:early regarded by legislators as a See also:matter calling for special See also:attention
.
The pre-See also:Conquest compilations of See also:laws are full of provisions on the subject
.
The earlier laws appear to regard it as a delict which may be compounded for by payment
.
Considerable distinctions of person are made, both in regard to the owner and the thief
.
Thus, by the laws of IEthelberht, if a See also:freeman See also:stole from the See also:
In the laws of See also:Alfred See also:ordinary theft was still only civil, but he who stole in a See also:
The next act appears to be the See also:statute of See also:Westminster the First (1275), dealing again with stealing deer
.
It seems as though the beginning of legislation on the subject was for the purpose of protecting the chases and parks of the king and the See also:nobility
.
A very large number of the old acts are named in the repealing act of 1827
.
An act of the same date removed the old distinction between See also:grand and See also:petit larceny.' The former was theft of goods above the value of twelve pence, in the house of the owner, not from the person, or by See also:night, and was a capital crime
.
It was petit larceny where the value was twelve pence or under, the punishment being imprisonment or See also:whipping
.
The See also:gradual depreciation in the value of See also:money afforded good ground for See also:Sir See also: There are, however, other acts in force dealing with special cases of larceny, such as an act of Henry VIII. as to stealing the goods of the king, and the See also:Game, See also:Post-See also:Office and See also:Merchant See also:Shipping Acts . There are See also:separate acts providing for larceny by a partner of partner-See also:ship property, and by a See also:husband or wife of the property of the other (Married Women's Property Act 1882) . Proceedings against persons subject to See also:naval or military law depend upon the Naval Discipline Act 1866 and the See also:Army Act 1881 . There are several acts, both before and after 1861, directing how the property is to be laid in indictments for stealing the goods of counties, friendly See also:societies, trades unions, &c . The See also:principal conditions which must exist in See also:order to constitute larceny are these: (I) there must be an actual taking into the See also:possession of the thief, though the smallest removal is sufficient; (2) there must be an intent to deprive the owner of his property for an indefinite period, and to assume the entire dominion over it, an intent often described in Bracton's words as animus furandi; (3) this intent must exist at the time of taking; (¢) the thing taken must be one capable of larceny either at common law or by statute . One or two cases falling under the law of larceny are of special See also:interest . It was held more than once that a servant taking See also:corn to feed his See also:master's horses, but without any intention of applying it for his own benefit, was guilty of larceny . To remedy this hardship, the Misappropriation of Servants Act 1863 was passed to declare such an act not to be felony . The case of See also:appropriation of goods which have been found has led to some difficulty . It now seems to be the law that in order to constitute a larceny of lost goods there must be a felonious intent at the time of finding, that is, an intent to deprive the owner of them, coupled with reason-able means at the same time of knowing the owner . The See also:mere retention of the goods when the owner has become known to the finder does not make the retention criminal . Larceny of money may be committed when the money is paid by See also:mistake, if the prisoner took it animo furandi . In two noteworthy cases the question was argued before a very full See also:court for See also:crown cases re-served, and in each case there was a striking difference of See also:opinion . In R. v . See also:Middleton, 1873, L.R . 2 C.C.R., 38, the prisoner, a depositor in a post-office savings See also:bank, received by the mistake of the clerk a larger sum that he was entitled to . The See also:jury found that he had the animus furandi at the time of taking the money, and that he knew it to be the money of the postmaster-See also:general . The See also:majority of the court held it to be larceny . In a case in 1885 (R. v . See also:Ashwell, L.R . 16 Q.B.D . 190), where the prosecutor gave the prisoner a See also:sovereign believing it to be a See also:shilling, and the prisoner ' This See also:provision was most unnecessarily repeated in the Larceny Act of 1861 . took it under that belief, but afterwards discovered its value and retained it, the court was equally divided as to whether the prisoner was guilty of larceny at common law, but held that he was not guilty of larceny as a bailee . Legislation has considerably affected the procedure in prosecutions for larceny . The inconveniences of the common law 'rules of See also:interpretation of indictments led to certain amendments of the law, now contained in the Larceny Act, for the purpose of avoiding the frequent failures of justice owing to the strictness with which indictments were construed . Three larcenies of property of the same person within six months may now be charged in one See also:indictment . On an indictment for larceny the prisoner may be found guilty of embezzlement, and See also:vice versa; and if the prisoner be indicted for obtaining goods by false pretences, and the offence turn out to be larceny, he is not entitled to be acquitted of the See also:misdemeanour . A See also:count for receiving may be joined with the count for stealing . In many cases it is unnecessary to allege or prove ownership of the property the subject of the indictment . The act also contains numerous provisions as to See also:venue and the See also:apprehension of offenders . In another direction the See also:powers of courts of Summary Jurisdiction (q.v.) have been extended, in the case of charges of larceny, embezzlement and receiving stolen goods, against See also:children and See also:young persons and against adults See also:pleading guilty or waiving their right to trial by jury . The maximum punishment for larceny is fourteen years' penal See also:servitude, but this can only be inflicted in certain exceptional cases, such as See also:horse or cattle stealing and larceny by a servant or a person in the service of the crown or the See also:police . The extreme punishment for simple larceny after a previous conviction for felony is ten years' penal servitude . Whipping may be See also:part of the See also:sentence on boys under sixteen . See also:Scotland.—A vast number of acts of the Scottish See also:parliament dealt with larceny . The general policy of the acts was to make larceny what was not larceny at common law, e.g. stealing See also:fruit, See also:dogs, See also:hawks or deer, and to extend the remedies, e.g. by giving the See also:justiciar authority throughout the See also:kingdom, by making the master in the case of theft by the servant liable to give the latter up to justice, or by allowing the use of firearms against thieves . The general result of legislation in England and Scotland has been to assimilate the law of larceny in both kingdoms . As a See also:rule, what would be larceny in one would be larceny in the other . See also:United States.—The law depends almost entirely upon See also:state legislation, and is in general accordance with that of England . The only acts of See also:Congress bearing on the subject See also:deal with larceny in the army and See also:navy, and with larceny and receiving on the high seas or in any place under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, e.g . See also:Alaska . Alaska.—Stealing any goods, chattels, See also:government See also:note, bank note, or other thing in action, books of See also:account, &c., is larceny: punishment, imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years if the property stolen is in value over $35 . Larceny in any dwelling-house, warehouse, steamship, church, &c., is punishable by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than seven years . Larceny of a horse, See also:mule, See also:ass, See also:bull, See also:steer, cow or See also:reindeer is punish-able by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than fifteen years . Wilfully altering or defacing marks or brands on such animals is larceny (See also:Pen . See also:Code Alaska, § 45, 1899)- See also:Arizona.—Appropriating property found without due inquiry for the owner is larceny (Penal Code, § 442) . " Dogs are property and of the value of one See also:dollar each within the meaning of the terms ' property ' and ' value ' as used in this See also:chapter " (id . § 448) . Property includes a passage See also:ticket though never issued . Persons stealing property in another state or See also:county, or who receive it knowing it to be stolen and bring it into Arizona, may be convicted and punished as if the offence was committed there (id . § 454) . Stealing See also:gas or See also:water from a main is a misdemeanour . See also:Iowa.—It is larceny to steal See also:electricity, gas or water from wires, meters or mains (L . 1903, ch . 132) . New See also:York.—Larceny as defined by § 528 of the Penal Code includes also embezzlement, obtaining property by false pretences, and felonious breach of trust (See also:People v . Dumar, toe N.Y . 508), but the method of See also:proof required to establish these offences has not been changed . Grand larceny in the first degree is (a) stealing property of any value in the night time; (b) of $25 in value or more at night from a dwelling house, See also:vessel or railway See also:car; (c) of the value of more than $50o in any manner; in the second degree (a) stealing in any manner property of the value of over $25 and under $500; (b) taking from the person property of any value; (c) stealing any See also:record of a court or other record filed with any public officer . Every other larceny is petit larceny . " Value " of any stock, See also:bond or See also:security having a See also:market value is the amount of money due thereon or what, in any contingency, might be collected thereon; of any passenger ticket the See also:price it is usually sold at . The value of any-thing else not fixed by statute is its market value . Grand larceny, in the first degree, is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding tenyears; in the second degree, not exceeding five years . Petit larceny is a misdemeanour (Penal Code, §§ 530-535) . Bringing stolen goods into the state knowing them to be stolen is punishable as larceny within the state (id . § 540) . A " pay ticket " for removing a load of See also:snow may be the subject of larceny and its value the amount to be paid on it . (People v . See also:Fletcher [1906] 'To App . D . 231) . See also:Kansas.—The owner of goods who takes them from a railroad See also:company with intent to defeat its See also:lien for transportation charges is guilty of larceny . (See also:Atchison Co. v . Hinsdell [1907] 90 Pac . See also:Rep . Soo) . See also:Massachusetts.—Larceny includes embezzlement and obtaining money by false pretences . (Rev . L . 1902, ch . 218, § 40.) The failing to restore to or to notify the owner of property removed from premises on fire is larceny (id. ch . 208, § 22) . It is larceny to See also:purchase property (payment for which is to be made on or before delivery) by means of a false pretence as to means or ability to pay, provided such pretence is signed by the person to be charged . Indictment for stealing a will need not contain an allegation of value (id . § 29) . A person convicted either as See also:accessory or principal of three distinct larcenies shall be adjudged " a common and notorious thief " and may be imprisoned for not more than twenty years (id . 31) . On second conviction for larceny of a See also:bicycle, the thief may be imprisoned for not more than five years . Larceny of things annexed to realty is punishable as if it were a larceny of personal property (id . §§ 33, 35) . See also:Ohio.—Stealing " anything of value " is larceny (See also:Bates Stats . § 6856) . Tapping gas pipes is punishable by fine or imprisonment for not more than See also:thirty days . Stealing See also:timber having " timber dealers' " See also:trade See also:mark, or removing it from a stream, is punishable by a fine of not less than $2o . See also:Utah.—It is grand larceny to alter the mark or See also:brand on an See also:animal (L . 1905, ch . 38) . See also:Wyoming.—For See also:branding or altering or defacing the brand on cattle with intent to steal, the penalty is imprisonment for not more than five years . It is larceny for a bailee to convert with intent to steal goods See also:left with or found by him (Rev . Stats . §§ 4986, 4989) . See also:Washington.—A horse not branded, but under Code § 6861 an " outlaw," the owner being unknown, can be the subject of a larceny, having been held to be property of the state . (State v . Eddy [1907], 90 Pac . Rep . 641) . For the third offence of such a larceny the penalty is imprisonment for life (L . 1903, ch . 86) . See also EMBEZZLEMENT; CHEATING; FALSE PRETENCES; ROBBERY; STOLEN GOODS . |
|
|
[back] LARBERT |
[next] LARCH (from the Ger. Larche, M.H.G. Lerche, Lat. la... |
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.