Robbery.

building called a saloon." Held, that the indictment was bad for not showing for what purpose the building was occupied. The words, "building or room," in the statute, defining the crime of arson, are limited by the words "occupied as a shop or office for professional business;" and, in an indictment for burning a building or room, it must be averred that it was at the time occupied as a shop, or as an office for professional business. 26 Ind. 266.

Unfinished house not subject of arson.-The criminal law of this state on the subject of arson, in burning a dwelling-house or barn, does not embrace the burning of an unfinished house or barn, in process of construction, which has never been actually occupied or used for the purpose for which it is being erected. 20 Ind. 242.

"Willfully and maliciously.”—An indictment for arson should allege that the offense was committed willfully and maliciously. 6 Blackf. 295; 2 Whart. Crim. Law, § 1673.

Value of property destroyed.-An indictment for arson should allege the value of the property destroyed. 7 Blackf. 168.

Jury may view building.-In a prosecution for arson, the jury may be sent out to view the building fired. 11 Ind. 234; 2 R. S. 169. The offense of arson is consummated by the least burning of the house. 2 Whart. Crim. Law, § 1659.

But a bare intention, or even an actual attempt, is insufficient; there must be a part burned. The offense is complete, even though the fire goes out. Id. 1660.

Stacks or shocks of grain or hay.-Under a statute in Ohio, declaring it arson to burn any stack of wheat, etc., it was alleged in an indictment that the defendant burned fifty stacks of wheat. The evidence showed that he burned divers shocks of wheat, and the supreme court held that this was a variance, as the evidence also further showed that a shock consisted of twelve sheaves, two of which were cap sheaves, while a stack is a large conical pile, comprised of many shocks. 18 Ohio, 11.

SEC. 4. ROBBERY.

SEC. 18. Every person who shall, forcibly and feloniously, take from the person of another any article of value by violence, or putting in fear, shall be deemed guilty of robbery, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state

Robbery.

prison not less than two nor more than fourteen years, and be fined not exceeding one thousand dollars. 2 R. S. 432.

county, forcibly and feloniously took from the person of C. D., by violence and putting him in fear, one gold watch of the value of one hundred dollars, of the personal goods and chattels of the said C. D. Bicknell's Crim. Pr. 319.

2. Robbing of United States treasury notes, etc. That A. B., on the day of in the year at said county, forcibly and feloniously took from the person of C. D., by violence, and putting him, the said C. D., in fear, one United States, treasury note, of the denomination and value of ten dollars; one United States treasury note, of the denomination and value of five dollars; one leather pocket-book, of the value of one dollar; and one pocket-knife, of the value of one dollar; all of the aggregate value of seventeen dollars, of the personal goods and chattels of said C. D.

Description of money.—An indictment for robbery, the property. alleged to have been taken being bank notes or bills, which, in describing such notes or bills, does not state their denominations by the use of the word denomination or equivalent words, is bad on motion to quash. 52 Ind. 281.

What is a sufficient indictment.-An indictment for robbery alleged that the accused, on, etc., at, etc., "forcibly and feloniously took from the person of A., by violence, and putting him, the said A., in fear," certain personal property, which was described. Held, that the indictment contained a distinct charge of everything necessary to constitute the crime of robbery, under the statute. 28 Ind. 22.

Description of property same as larceny.-In an indictment for robbery, the description of the property taken need not be more particular than is required in charging a larceny. 25 Ind. 403; 13 Id. 70.

Description of property.-An indictment for robbery described the property taken as "one pocket-book, of the value of fifty cents; one

Robbery.

bank note, of the value of ten dollars; one bank note, of the value of five dollars; one piece of gold coin, of American coinage, of the value of five dollars." Held, that this description was sufficient.

13 Ind. 70.

Carrying away.-An indictment for robbery need not allege a carrying away. Ibid.

Counts for robbery and larceny may be joined.-A count charging robbery may be joined with a count charging grand larceny. 16 Ind. 461.

Violence-Evidence.-On the trial of an indictment for robbery, the evidence showed that the accused was found standing astride the body of a man, who was lying upon the ground drunk and unconscious; that he had taken from the pockets of the drunken man a pocket-book and other property, and in doing so had turned the pockets inside out. The indictment charged the taking to have been by force and violence. Held, that the case made by the evidence was larceny, not robbery. Held, also, that a sufficient degree of force to constitute violence was an essential ingredient of the crime as charged. 25 Ind. 403. As to violence and putting in fear, see 15 Ind. 288; Am. L. R. (N. S.), Vol. XIV. 702.

Larceny included in robbery.-The defendant was indicted and convicted for grand larceny, but the proof showed that he had committed robbery. Held, that larceny is included in robbery, and that the state had the right to elect to prosecute and convict for the former, though she thereby deprived herself of the right to prosecute for the latter. 23 Ind. 21. See 35 Ind. 460.

Larceny distinguished from robbery-Evidence.-On the trial of an indictment for the larceny of bank bills, where the evidence was that the defendant snatched a pocket-book containing the bank bills from the prosecuting witness. Held, that the offence was larceny, and not robbery, as there was neither violence nor putting in fear. Held, also, that it was error to permit the state to prove, that, on the next day, the defendant enticed the prosecuting witness into an alley, and knocked him down and beat him and robbed him of other bills of a different description, as the offence was a distinct one, and might have prejudiced the defendant before the jury. Held, also, that the statements of third parties, tending to show that they were the persons who got the money in question from the prosecuting witness, were properly excluded as hearsay evidence. 35 Ind. 460.

Larceny.

SEC. 5. LARCENY.

Acts 1877, reg. sess., p. 63, amending

SEC. 19. Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, and carry, lead, or drive away the personal goods of another, of the value of fifteen dollars or upwards, shall be deemed guilty of grand larceny, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding double the value of the goods stolen, be imprisoned in the state prison not less than two nor more than fourteen years, and be disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.

SEC. 20 (as amended). Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, and carry, lead, or drive away the personal goods of another, of the value of any sum less than fifteen dollars, shall be deemed guilty of petit larceny, and, upon conviction therefor, shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, be imprisoned in the state's prison not less than one nor more than three years, and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit, for any determinate period, or fined and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit, and imprisoned in the jail of the proper county for any determinate period of time not exceeding one year. 2. R. S. 432, 433.

CHARGES.

1. Stealing four pairs of boots.
day of

in the year

That A. B., on the at said county, four pairs of boots of the value of ten dollars each pair, of the goods and chattels of C. D., then and there being found, did feloniously steal, take, and carry away. Bicknell's Crim. Pr. 324.

2. Stealing a horse.

day of

in the year

That A. B., on the at said county, one horse of the value of seventy-five dollars, of the personal property of C. D., then and there being found, did feloniously steal, take, lead, and drive away. See 21 Ind. 236.

Larceny.

3. Stealing bank note.

That A. B., on the day of

(Petit larceny.)
in the year

at said

county, one national bank note of the denomination and value of five dollars, of the goods and chattels of C. D., then and there being found, did feloniously steal, take, and carry away.

FORM AND CONTENTS.

Sufficiency of indictment.-An indictment for larceny charged that the defendant on, etc., at, etc., did "unlawfully and feloniously steal, take, and carry away, of the personal goods and chattels of one A., then an there being, of the value of four dollars, one pair of boots, contrary to the form of the statute," etc. Held, that while the indictment was somewhat transposed and out of the usual form, it substantially and sufficiently charged a larceny of the personal goods of the party named. 44 Ind. 285.

Description of property-Gold coins.-An indictment for grand larceny charged that A., on, etc., at, etc., sixty dollars of the current gold coin of the United States, of the value, etc., the property of, etc., did feloniously steal, etc., sufficiently describes the property charged to have been stolen. 11 Ind. 195. See 48 Ind. 163.

Same. In an indictment for stealing coin, to say United States gold coin is the same as to say current gold coin of the United States, etc.; and where the several denominations and the value of such coin are alleged in dollars and cents, it may be presumed that the court and jury will know that a coin of the value of ten dollars is an eagle, etc. 10 Ind. 536.

Omission of defendant's name in indictment.-Indictment as follows: "State of Indiana v. John Campbell. Indictment for larceny in the Allen Circuit Court, at November term, 1857. The grand jury of the county of Allen, in the State of Indiana, upon their oath, charge, that on the 4th day of November, 1857, at said county of Allen, in said State of Indiana, feloniously did steal, take, and carry away one twenty-dollar gold coin," etc. Held, on motion in arrest, that the indictment does not charge any person with the commission of larceny. 10 Ind. 420.

Misspelling of words in an indictment.-An indictment for larceny charged that the defendant did feloniously stal, take, and carry away one match, of the value, etc., upon which the defendant was found guilty. Held, that the use of the word stal, instead of steal,. was not sufficient cause to arrest the judgment. 4 Blackf. 457.