184 THEFT AND REMOVAL OP ANIMALS. 



means a living one and not a carcass, and where an animal is 

 killed and carried away, the defendant can be convicted only 

 where the killing as well as the carrying away was done with 

 the intent to appropriate the body.^*° In an EngHsh case 

 where it was held that "one ham of the value of ... of the 

 goods and chattels of . . ." was a sufficient description of 

 the article stolen, it was said: "The doctrine respecting the 

 description of animals in an indictment applies only to live 

 animals, not to parts of the carcasses of animals when dead, 

 such as a boar's head. Do you find in works on natural his- 

 tory that there is any living animal called a ham?" ^" 



Possession of the animal is not alone prima facie evidence 

 of guilt.^*^ In a prosecution for stealing a particular horse, 

 it was held that evidence could not be given that the defend- 

 ant was associated with horse thieves and subsequently con- 

 spired to steal horses.^*^ So, it was held that the State could 

 not prove the possession by the accused of other cattle than 

 those named in the indictment unless it were shown that they 

 were taken at the same time and by the same persons, and 

 that, if such testimony were admitted, it would be error to 

 exclude evidence that the defendant had been tried for the 

 theft of other cattle and acquitted.^** Where persons steal 

 two animals from two different herds having different owners, 

 taking one about an hour after the other, the stealing of each 

 animal was a complete and independent offense and an ac- 

 quittal as to one is not an acquittal as to the other.^*" Evi- 

 dence as to what became of the stolen animals after the de- 

 fendant's arrest is inadmissible.^*® 



"° Hunt V. State, SS Ala. 138. And see Peo. v. Smith, 112 Cal. 333. 



"' Patteson, J., in Reg. v. Gallears, I Den. C. C. 501. 



"' Schindler v. State, 15 Tex. App. 394; Pettigrew v. State, 12 id. 225; 

 Alexander v. State, 60 Miss. 953. See Gomez v. State, 15 Tex. App. 64. 



"' Cheny v. State, 7 O. 222. As to the admissibility of the sayings and 

 doings of an accomplice, see State v. Cole, 22 Kan. 474. 



'" Ivey V. State, 43 Tex. 425. And see State v. Labertew, 55 Kan. 674. 



"° State V. English, 14 Mont. 399. 



"° Clay V. State (Tex. Cr.), 51 S. W. Rep. 212. 



