THE TAKING. 173 



defendant was guilty of larceny if, after he shot the hog, he 

 was near enough to exercise control over it, with intent to 

 steal it, was held erroneous — actual possession being essen- 

 tial to guilt.*^ 



The recapture of stolen hogs after they had escaped from 

 the control of their takers was held to constitute a fresh lar- 

 ceny, the escape being from a pen into a pasture insufficiently 

 fenced, though they did not leave the pasture.** 



53. Asportation, Killing, Removal to Another County or State. 



— At common law the property must be carried away to con- 

 stitute larceny. Thus, merely killing an animal with intent 

 to steal it is not alone sufficient, where there is no removal.*^ 

 An indictment for stealing an animal is not supported by 

 proof that it was shot and skinned,*® or had its ears cut off.*'' 

 But the degree of asportation may be very slight. Thus, 

 where one shot another's cow in a wood, taking possession 

 of her when shot, handling her carcass so as to progress half 

 way in skinning it and leaving it only when frightened by a 

 dog's barking and the apprehended approach of somebody, 

 this was held a sufficient asportation to constitute larceny. 



"The position of the cow must have been changed from 

 that in which her owner left her free to move." *® So, where 

 the defendant shot a hog and cut its throat, causing death, 

 an instruction was held correct that the "least removal of the 

 hog by the defendant after he shot and killed it would be an 

 asporiavit in law; and if the jury believe from the evidence 

 beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant shot and killed 

 the hog and then took hold of it and cut its throat, that would 

 constitute a taking and carrying away in the eyes of the 



"' Molton V. State, 105 Ala. 18. " Trimble v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 397. 

 "Peo. V. Murphy, 47 Cal. 103; State v. Seagler, i Rich. L. (S. C.) 30; 

 Alexander v. State, 60 Miss. 953. 

 " State V. Alexander, 74 N. C. 232. 

 " State V. Butler, 65 N. C. 309. 

 " Lundy v. State, 60 Ga. 143. 



