of the offence. We are entirely satisfied, however, that the right to prosecute the thief in any county wherein he was found in possession of the stolen property, was not asserted by the Crown, because of the fact that a new and distinct larceny of the goods was committed whenever and wherever the thief might pass from one county into another. His exemption from more than one conviction and punishment makes this proposition clear enough. The common law provided that no person should be twice vexed for the same cause. It was through the operation of this principle that the thief who stole property in one county, and was afterward found with the fruits of his crime in another, could not be tried and convicted in each county. He was guilty of one offence only, and that offence was complete in the county where the property was first "taken" by the thief, and removed from the place in which the owner had it in possession.

When goods piratically seized upon the high seas were afterward carried by the thief into a county of England, the common-law judges refused to take cognizance of the larceny," because the original act — namely, the taking of them- was not any offence whereof the common law taketh knowledge; and by consequence, the bringing them into a county could not make the same a felony punishable by our law." 13 Coke, 53; 3 Inst. 113; 1 Hawk. c. 19, sec. 52.

The prisoner was charged with larceny at Dorsetshire, where he had possession of the stolen goods. The goods had been stolen by him in the island of Jersey, and afterward he brought them to Dorsetshire. The prisoner was convicted. All the judges (except Raymond, C. B., and Taunton, J., who did not sit) agreed that the conviction was wrong. Rex v. Prowes, 1 Moody C. C. 349.

Property was stolen by the prisoner in France, and was transported to London, where it was found in his possession. Parke, B., directed the jury to acquit the prisoner on the ground of the want of jurisdiction, which was done. Regina v. Madge, 9 Car. & P. 29.

A similar decision was made in a case where the property was stolen in Scotland and afterward carried by the thief into England. 2 East P. C. 772, c. 16, sec. 156.

This rule of the common law was afterward superseded, in respect to the United Kingdom, by the statutes of 13 Geo. III., c. 21, sec. 4, and 7 and 8 Geo. IV., c. 29, sec. 76, whereby prosecutions were authorized in any county in which the thief was found, in possession of property stolen by him in any part of the United Kingdom.

In Commonwealth v. Uprichard, 3 Gray, 434, the property had been stolen in the province of Nova Scotia, and thence carried by the thief into Massachusetts. The defendant was convicted of larceny charged to have been committed in the latter state. This conviction was set aside by a unanimous court, although two decisions had been made by the same court affirming convictions where the property had been stolen in a sister state, and afterward brought by the thief into that commonwealth. Without overruling the older cases, Chief-Justice

Shaw, in delivering the opinion of the court, distinguished between the two classes of cases.

The following cases are in point, that a state, into which stolen goods are carried by a thief from a sister state, has no jurisdiction to convict for the larceny of the goods, and a fortiori when the goods were stolen in a foreign country: In New York: People v. Gardner, 2 Johns. 477; People v. Schenk, 2 Johns. 479. The rule was afterward changed in that state by statute. New Jersey: The State v. Le Blanch, 2 Vroom, 82. Pennsylvania: Simmons v. Commonwealth, 5 Binn. 617. North Carolina: The State v. Brown, 1 Hayw. 100. Tennessee Simpson v. The State, 4 Humph. 456. Indiana: Beall v. The State, 15 Ind. 378. Louisiana: The State v. Reonnals, 14 L. An. 278.

There are two cases sustaining convictions for larceny in the States, where the property had been stolen in the British Provinces: The State v. Bartlett, 11 Vermont, 650, and The State v. Underwood, 49 Maine, 181. In Bartlett's case, the principle is doubted, but the practice adopted in cases where the property was stolen in a sister state was followed, and the application of the principle thereby extended. Underwood's case was decided by a majority of the judges.

After reviewing the cases, we think the weight of authority is against the conviction and judgment below. And in the light of principle, we have no hesitancy in holding that the court below had no jurisdiction over the offence committed by the prisoner.

The judgment below is wrong, unless every act of the defendant which was necessary to complete the offence was committed within the State of Ohio and in violation of the laws thereof. This proposition is not disputed. It is conceded by the prosecution that the taking as well as the removal of the goods animo furandi, must have occurred within the limits of Ohio. It is also conceded that the first taking, as well as the first removal of the goods alleged in this case to have been stolen, was at a place beyond the limits of the state, and within the jurisdiction of a foreign and independent sovereignty. Now, the doctrine of all the cases is that the original "taking" and the original asportation of the goods by the prisoner must have been under such circumstances as constituted a larceny. If the possession of the goods by the defendant before they were brought into this state was a lawful possession, there would be no pretence that the conviction was proper. The same, if his possession was merely tortious. The theory of the law upon which the propriety of the conviction is claimed is based on the assumption that the property was stolen in Canada by the prisoner. By what rule shall it be determined whether the acts of the prisoner, whereby he acquired the possession of the goods in Canada, constituted the crime of larceny? By the laws of this state? Certainly not. The criminal laws of this state have no extra-territorial operation. If the acts of the prisoner, whereby he came in possession of the property described in the indictment, were not inhibited by the

laws of Canada, it is perfectly clear that he was not guilty of larceny there. It matters not that they were such as would have constituted larceny if the transaction had taken place in this state.

Shall the question whether or not the "taking" of the property by the prisoner was a crime in Canada be determined by the laws of that country? If this be granted, then an act which was an essential element in the combination of facts of which Stanley was found guilty was in violation of the laws of Canada, but not of this state; and it was because the laws of Canada were violated that the prisoner was convicted. If the laws of that country had been different, though the conduct of the prisoner had been the same, he could not have been convicted. I can see no way to escape this conclusion, and if it be correct, it follows that the acts of the prisoner in a foreign country, as well as his acts in this state, were essential elements in his offence; therefore, no complete offence was committed in this state against the laws thereof.

I have no doubt the legislature might make it a crime for a thief to bring into this state property stolen by him in a foreign country. And in order to convict of such crime, it would be necessary to prove the existence of foreign laws against larceny. The existence of such foreign laws would be an ingredient in the statutory offence. But that offence would not be larceny at common law, for the reason that larceny at common law contains no such element. It consists in taking and carrying away the goods of another person in violation of the rules of the common law, without reference to any other law or the laws of any other country.

It may be assumed that the laws of meum et tuum prevail in every country, whether civilized or savage. But this state has no concern in them further than to discharge such duties as are imposed upon it by the laws of nations, or through its connection with the general government, by treaty stipulations.

Our civil courts are open for the reclamation of property which may have been brought within our jurisdiction, in violation of the rights of the owner; but our criminal courts have no jurisdiction over offences committed against the sovereignty of foreign and independent states.1 Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

DAY, C. J., WELCH, STONE, and WHITE, JJ., concurring.

1 In addition to the cases cited in this opinion see the following: That conviction may not be had when the property was first taken outside the jurisdiction, Lee v. State, 64 Ga. 203; People v. Loughridge, 1 Neb. 11. That conviction may be had, Stinson v. People, 43 Ill. 397; Worthington v. State, 58 Md. 403; State v. Newman, 9 Nev. 48; State v. Hill, 19 S. C. 435. See also State v. Somerville, 21 Me. 14. - ED.

T

SECTION III.

Taking after Delivery.

(a) LARCENY by BAILEE.

...

1 Hawkins Pleas of the Crown (7th ed., 1795), 209. In general, where the delivery of the property is made for a certain, special, and particular purpose, the possession is still supposed to reside unparted with in the first proprietor. Therefore . if a watch-maker steal a watch delivered to him to clean (O. B. 1779, No. 83); or if one steal clothes delivered for the purpose of being washed (O. B. 1758, No. 18); ‹ or goods in a chest delivered with the key for safe custody (O. B. 1779, No. 83); or guineas delivered for the purpose of being changed into half-guineas (Ann Atkinson's Case, Leach Crown Cas. 247, notes); or a watch delivered for the purpose of being pawned (Leach Crown Cas. 320); in all these instances, the goods taken have been thought to remain in the possession of the proprietor, and the taking of them away held to be felony.1

MARY RAVEN, alias Aston, was indicted for stealing two blankets, three pair of sheets, three pillowbiers, and other goods of William Cannon. And upon the evidence it appeared that she had hired lodgings and furniture with them for three months, and during that time conveyed away the goods which she had hired with her lodgings, and she herself ran away at the same time. And it was agreed by my Lord Bridgeman, myself, and my brother Wylde, Recorder of London, then present, that this was no felony, because she had a special property in them by her contract, and so there could be no trespass; and there can be no felony where there is no trespass, as it was resolved in the case of Holmes, who set fire on his own house in London, which was quenched before it went further.

1 These cases were first cited in the 6th edition of the treatise (1787) in the notes and were brought up into the text in the 7th edition. The citations of the cases are all (with perhaps one exception) wrong, and it is difficult to identify them. The first case appears to be Rex v. Vansas, O. B. 1779, No. 88. The prisoner was journeyman to a watchmaker, and was given the watch by him to repair, and pawned it; in his defence he said, "The watch was given into my care; I appeal to your Lordship and the jury whether this is stealing." He was convicted. The second case cannot be identified. The third case is really Rex v. More, O. B. 1758, No. 18. A woman who had been sent to prison gave the key of her chest to the defendant, who stole goods from it; the chest was apparently left in the prosecutor's house. Atkinson's Case was a case of larceny by a servant. The last case cannot be found in Leach, but is Rex v. Bradley, O. B. 1784, No. 613. It is a case of larceny by trick. - ED.

LEIGH'S CASE.

CROWN CASE RESERVED. 1800.

[Reported 2 East P. C. 694.]

ELIZABETH LEIGH was indicted at Wells assizes, in the summer of 1800, for stealing various articles, the property of Abraham Dyer. It appeared that the prosecutor's house, consisting of a shop containing muslin and other articles mentioned in the indictment, was on fire; and that his neighbors had in general assisted at the time in removing his goods and stock for their security. The prisoner probably had removed all the articles which she was charged with having stolen when the prosecutor's other neighbors were thus employed. And it appeared that she removed some of the muslin in the presence of the prosecutor and under his observation, though not by his desire. Upon the prosecutor's applying to her next morning, she denied that she had any of the things belonging to him; whereupon he obtained a search warrant, and found his property in her house, most of the articles artfully concealed in various ways. The jury found her guilty; but it was suggested that she originally took the articles with an honest purpose, as her neighbors had done, and that she would not otherwise have taken some of them in the presence and under the view of the prosecutor; and that therefore the case did not amount to felony. The jury were instructed that whether she took them originally with an honest intent was a question of fact for their consideration; that it did not necessarily follow from the circumstances mentioned that she took them with an honest intent. But even if they were of that opinion, yet that her afterwards hiding the goods in the various ways proved, and denying that she had them, in order to convert them to her own use, would still support the indictment. The jury found her guilty; but said that, in their opinion, when she first took the goods from the shop she had no evil intention, but that such evil intention came upon her afterwards. And upon reference to the judges, in Michaelmas Term, 1800, all (absent, Lawrence, J.) held the conviction wrong; for if the original taking were not with intent to steal, the subsequent conversion was no felony, but a breach of trust.1

THE prisoner was tried and convicted before Mr. Justice Bayley, at the Lancaster Lent Assizes, in the year 1812, for horse-stealing.

1 Acc. Reg. v. Reeves, 5 Jur. N. S. 716.-ED.