LAQUERING LARCENY. 



381 



him away, by running off as if lame, and inviting 

 pursuit. These birds have a singular mode of col- 

 lecting- their food, which consists of worms. When 

 they observe the small elevation in the ground which 

 the worm makes before it returns below ground, in 

 the morning, by emptying itself, they gently open it 

 at top with their bill, and tap on the ground, at 

 the side of it. This attracts the worm to the sur- 

 face, when it becomes the prey of the ingenious 

 hunter. These birds are very lively and active, 

 being almost continually in motion, sporting and 

 frolicking in the air, in all directions, and assuming 

 a variety of attitudes. They run along the ground 

 very nimbly, and spring and bound from spot to spot 

 with great agility. In the month of October, they 

 are very fat, and are then said to be excellent eating. 

 Their eggs are considered a great delicacy, and bring 

 high prices in the London markets. 



LAQUERING ; the laying on metals coloured or 

 transparent varnishes, to produce the appearance of 

 a different colour in the metal, or to preserve it from 

 rust. Thus laquered brass appears gilt, and tin is 

 made yellow. Seed-lac is the chief composition for 

 laquers, but turpentine makes a cheaper laquer. 



LARBOARD ; a name given by seamen to the 

 left side of a ship, when the spectator's face is turned 

 in the direction of the head. 



Larboard-Tack is when a ship is close-hauled, with 

 the wind blowing on her larboard side. 



LARCENY is the fraudulent taking by a person of 

 the goods of another, without his consent, with the 

 intent, on the part of the taker, to appropriate them 

 to his own use. As to the taking, the mere removing 

 of the goods is sufficient to constitute the crime ; as, 

 where the thief took down goods and put them into 

 a parcel, for the purpose of carrying them away, but 

 was detected and arrested before carrying them 

 away, this was held to be a sufficient taking to con- 

 stitute larceny. But, where a person only changed 

 the position of a package of cloth, by raising it on 

 end, for the purpose of taking out the cloth from the 

 bale, and was detected in his purpose before he had 

 opened the bale, this was held not to be a sufficient 

 taking to amount to this offence. The doctrine, in 

 this respect, is, that, to make the crime of larceny, 

 the person committing it must get the article into his 

 possession. The intent is a material circumstance ; 

 for, if one person takes the goods of another openly, 

 before his eyes, though with the design of appropriat- 

 ing them to his own use, it is not larceny, but only 

 a trespass : so, if goods be taken by negligence or 

 mistake, it is not larceny ; as if sheep stray into one's 

 flock, and he shears them by mistake, as his own. 

 The necessity of an intention to steal, in order to 

 constitute larceny, is illustrated by the case of a ser- 

 vant's assisting some thieves to steal his master's 

 goods, with the consent of his master, merely that 

 the thieves, who had previously formed the design of 

 committing the theft, might be detected : it was held 

 not larceny on the part of the servant, but it was 

 held to be so on the part of the others, though it was 

 objected, in their behalf, that the taking was not 

 against the consent of the master, it being essential 

 to larceny, that it should be committed against the 

 owner's consent ; but the court held it to come under 

 this description of crime, for the thieves had previous- 

 ly formed the design of stealing the goods, and the 

 master did not consent to their appropriating them 

 to their own use, but only to their proceeding so far 

 that they might be detected and convicted of the 

 crime. 



If a person has property in goods, and a right to 

 the possession of them, he cannot, in general, commit 

 the crime of larceny in taking them, but, if he only 

 has the custody of them, and no property in. them, 



he may steal them. Thus, if a bailee or lessee of 

 chattels appropriates them to his own use, it is not, 

 in general, larceny. Yet it has been held that, when 

 a common carrier, having charge of a package or box 

 of goods, opens it and takes out a part of the goods, 

 with the intent to steal them, this is theft. But the 

 common law makes a very subtile distinction in this 

 respect ; for, though breaking the package, and tak- 

 ing a part, with the design of appropriating the arti- 

 cles, is theft, yet selling the whole package entire 

 has been held not to be so, but only the violation of a 

 trust. The cases where a chattel is taken by a per- 

 son to whom it has been intrusted, and who converts 

 it to his own use, present very nice discriminations 

 of larceny from mere breaches of trust, in regard to 

 which the distinction is made by various circum- 

 stances. If the person gets possession of the goods 

 under a false pretence, with the design of stealing 

 them, yet, if they corne into his possession on a con- 

 tract or trust, it has been held, in many cases, not to 

 be a larceny; as, where a horse was bargained for at a 

 fair, and the purchaser rode him off, saying he would 

 return directly and pay the purchase money, but did 

 not come back at all, having intended to swindle 

 the vender, it was held not to be theft. If, however, 

 the purpose for which the article was intrusted to 

 another is accomplished, and he afterwards converts 

 it to his own use, with the intention of stealing it, this 

 is larceny ; as, where a horse was let to go to a cer- 

 tain place and back, and the hirer, having gone and 

 returned, then sold the horse, it was held to be theft, 

 for, the particular purpose for which the horse had 

 been intrusted to him, had been served. And the 

 courts generally lean towards construing the offence 

 to be a larceny, and not merely a trespass, where the 

 party gains possession by some false pretence, with 

 the original intent to steal ; and with good reason, 

 since it is adding a breach of trust to the crime of 

 larceny. If the owner does not part with the pos- 

 session of the goods, though the person, intending to 

 steal them, contrives to bring them within his reach 

 by some false pretence, this raises no doubt of its 

 being a larceny ; as, where one sent to a hosier's for 

 a quantity of stockings, under pretence of wishing to 

 purchase some, and having selected a part out of a 

 parcel brought by a servant, which he pretended he 

 was going to purchase, under some pretence, sent 

 the servant away, and then decamped with the whole 

 parcel, it was held to be larceny, for the owner had 

 never intrusted him with the parcel, or consented to 

 part with the possession. The same construction 

 was put upon the case, when a servant was sent with 

 some goods to a certain person, and another, pre- 

 tending to be the person to whom they were sent, 

 received them, with the intent of stealing them. 

 The cases of ring-dropping are instances of it ; such 

 getting possession of money or goods by false pre- 

 tences, being held to be larceny, though the goods 

 come into the possession of the thief by consent of 

 the owner ; that is, when a person, in company with 

 another, pretends to find a ring, which was previous- 

 ly dropped for the purpose, and the companion, being 

 imposed upon, proposes to share in the good fortune, 

 to which the finder consents; but not having money, 

 proposes to his companion to take the ring, giving 

 cash, a watch, or something of half the supposed 

 value of the ring, as a pledge, until he can dispose 

 of the ring, when its value is to be equally divided. 

 The transfer having been made, the swindler goes 

 off with the article that he has received, and his com- 

 panion finds the ring is of little value. This is held 

 to be larceny. 



As to the kinds of things, the taking of which is 

 larceny, they must, according to the common law, 

 be personal property, it being a maxim that, though 



