ASPORTATION, KILLING, REMOVAL. 175 



A Statute reducing theft to a misdemeanor or on the volun- 

 tary return of stolen property before prosecution, does not 

 apply where the character of the property has been changed 

 as from live hogs to pork.^* 



Where one was indicted for killing a sheep with intent to 

 steal the whole carcass, proof of the killing with intent to 

 steal a part of the carcass was held sufficient, but it was ques- 

 tioned whether merely removing a live sheep for the purpose 

 of killing it to steal a part of the carcass, was an asportation."* 

 And in a Missouri case it was held that a statute punishing 

 the killing of an animal with intent to steal it did not apply to 

 the killing of an animal which the defendant already had on 

 his own premises. "The taking and asportation in this case 

 occurred first, and hence the larceny was complete before the 

 animal was killed." *° 



Cutting off part of a sheep while it is alive with intent to 

 steal that part will support an indictment for killing with in- 

 tent to steal a part of the carcass, if the injury must occasion 

 the animal's death.®^ 



Where an animal is stolen in one county and brought into 

 another, the offense is regarded as continuous and the thief 

 may be indicted in the latter county.*^ It has been held that 

 the same rule applies as between the different States,** though 

 there are authorities to the contrary.®* But this question is 

 beyond the scope of the present treatise, belonging to the 

 general treatment of larceny as a crime.*" Where two per- 

 sons indicted for horse-stealing in County A. were found in 

 joint possession of two horses in that county, which they had 

 jointly taken at different times and places in County B., it 



" Horseman v. State, 43 Tex. 353- " Rex v. Williams, i M. C. C. 107. 

 "° State V. Crow, 107 Mo. 341 ; on rehearing, 17 S. W. Rep. 748. 

 ■" Rex V. Clay, R. & R. C. C. 387. And see Reg. v. Sutton, 8 C. & P. 

 291. 



"' I Whart. Crim. Law § 928- 



«= State V. Hill, 19 S. C. 43S; State v. Ellis, 3 Conn. 185. 



"' Lee V. State, 64 Ga. 203; Harrington v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 577. 



" See I Whart. Crim. Law § 930. 



