HOESE STEALING. 



55 



unlawfully, will be only a trespass if the jury are satisfied that 

 such was the original intention. Thus, where two persons 

 took two horses from a stable, rode them to a place at a 

 distance, and there left them, proceeding on foot, and the 

 jury found that they took the horses merely to forward 

 them on their journey, and not to make any further use of 

 them, this was held not to be a larceny {b) . And if a per- 

 son stealing other property takes a horse, not with the 

 intent to steal it, but only to get off more conveniently with 

 the other property which he has stolen, such taking of the 

 horse is not a felony (c). 



Where a man is found in possession of a thing after a 

 lapse of six or seven months from the time when it was 

 lost, and there is no other evidence against him but that 

 possession, he ought not to be called on to account for it. 

 Thus, where a mare, which had been lost in December, 

 was not found in the prisoner's possession till the June or 

 July following, it was held that his possession was not 

 sufficiently recent to put him on his defence (d) . 



By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 40 (e), the mahcious kiUing, 

 maiming or wounding of any cattle is felony. And the 

 word " cattle," which alone is mentioned in the Act, has 

 been held under former Acts to include horses (/), as well 

 as oxen, &c., pigs (g), and asses (A). 



By section 41 of the same statute, the malicious killing, 

 maiming or wounding of other animals is made punishable 

 by imprisonment or tine. 



Where a person had poured nitrous acid into a mare's 

 ear, and some had run into her eyes and blinded her, and 

 the injuries produced to the ear were ulcers, not wounds, 

 though such ulcers would have turned to wounds, a convic- 

 tion for maiming was held right («'). 



The distinction between maiming (k) and wounding (/) 

 appears to be that the former implies permanent injury, 

 while the latter does not necessarily do so. 



It is not necessary under this statute to prove that any 

 instrument has been used ; where the roots of a horse's 

 tongue were lacerated, and the tongue was protruding from 



{i) Rex V. Fhillips, 2 East, P. C. 

 c. 16, s. 98. 



(c) Rex V. Crump, 1 C. & P. 658. 



(d) Per Maule, J., Reg. v. Cooper, 

 16 Jur. 750. 



(e) Eepealiag tut re-enacting 7 & 8 

 Geo. i, c. 30, s. 16. 



(/) Rex V. Patey, 2 W. Bla. 721. 



Possession six 

 mouths after 

 loss. 



Killing or 



maiming 



horses. 



Other animals. 



Pouring acid 

 into a mare's 

 ear. 



' ' Maiming and 

 wounding." 



Use of instru- 

 ment need not 

 be proved. 



{g) Rex V. Chappie, E. & E. 77 ; 

 15 E. E. 736. 



(A) Rex V. Whitneij, 1 Mood. C. 

 C. 3. 



(«) Owen's Case, 1 Mood. C. C. 205. 



(k) R. V. Jeans, 1 C. & K. 539. 



(t) R. T. Haywood, Euss. & Eyan, 

 16. 



