LARCENY. 
24 a 
ent afls of Healing, to be added together ; and, as no num¬ 
ber of petit larcenies will amount to a grand larceny, fo 
no number of grand larcenies will amount to a capital of¬ 
fence. It is likewif'e true, that, by the merciful extenfions 
of the benefit of clergy by our modern ftatute-law, a per- 
fon who commits a Ample larceny to the value of 13d. (or 
thirteen hundred pounds,) though guilty of a capital of¬ 
fence, fhall be excufed the pains of death ; but this is 
only for the firft offence. And, in many cafes of Ample 
larceny, the benefit of clergy is taken away by ftatute; as 
from horfe-Healing, in the principals and accefi'ories, both 
before and after the faft. x Eliz. 6. c. 12 ; 2 & 3 Eliz. 6. 
c. 53; 31 Eliz. c. 12. Theft by great and notorious 
thieves in Northumberland and Cumberland. 18 Cur. II. 
c. 3. Taking woollen cloth from off the tenters; or li¬ 
nens, fuftians, callicoes, or cotton-goods, from the place 
of manufacture ; w hich extends, in the lall cafe, to aiders, 
aflifters, procurers, buyers, and receivers. 22 Car. II. c. 
5313 Geo. II. c. 27. 18 Geo. II. c. 27. Felonioufly driving 
away, or otherwife Healing, one or more (beep or other 
cattle fpecified, or killing them with intent to Heal the 
whole or any part of the carcafe, or aiding or allifting 
therein. 14 Geo. II. c. 6 ; 15 Geo. II. c. 34. Thefts on 
navigable rivers above the value of 40s. or being prefent, 
aiding, or aflifting, thereat. 24 Geo. II. c. 45. Stealing let¬ 
ters fent by the poll. 7 Geo. III. c. 50. Alfo Healing deer, 
fifh, hares, and conies, under the peculiar circumltances 
mentioned in the Waltham Black Act. 9 Geo. I. c. 22. 
Which additional feverity is owing to the great malice and 
mifehief of the theft in fome of thefe inftances; and, in 
others, to the difficulties men would otherwife be under 
to preferve thofe goods, which are fo eafily carried off. 
But in all thefe cafes, where benefit of clergy is excluded, 
it feems that the larceny mull exceed the value of i2d. 
See 4 Comm. c. 17. p. 241. in n. 
An acquittal of larceny in one county may be pleaded 
in bar of afubfequent profecution for the fame Healing in 
another county : and an averment that the offences in 
both indictments are the fame, may be made out by wit- 
neffes, or inquefi of office, without putting it to trial by 
jury ; though that of later years hath been the ufual me¬ 
thod. 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 35. § 4. But it is no plea in appeal 
of larceny, that the defendant hath been found not guilty 
in an aftion of trefpafs brought againfi him by the fame 
plaintiff - for the fame goods; for larceny and trefpafs are 
entirely different; and a bar in an aClion of an inferior 
nature will not bar another of a fuperior. 2 Hawk. P. C. 
c. 35 - § 5 - ... 
There are no acceffories in petit larceny ; therefore, if 
two be indiCfed, one for privately Healing from the per- 
fon a handkerchief value i2d. and another for receiving 
it, and the principal be found guilty value xod. only, the 
acceffory ought to be difeharged. Fojl. 73. 
II. Mixed or compound larceny , is fuch as has all the 
properties of Ample larceny ; but is accompanied with ei¬ 
ther one or both of the aggravations of a taking from 
one’s houfe or perfon. 
1. Larceny from the houfe, though it might feem to have 
a higher degree of guilt than fimple larceny, yet is not at 
all diftinguifhed from the other at common law ; unlefs 
where it is accompanied with the circumftance of break¬ 
ing the houfe by night; and then it falls under another 
defeription, viz that of burglary. But now, by feveral 
afts of parliament, the benefit of clergy is taken from lar¬ 
cenies committed in a houfe in almoff every inftance. The 
multiplicity of the general ads is apt to create fome con- 
fufion ; but upon comparing them diligently, we may col¬ 
led, that the benefit of clergy is denied upon the follow¬ 
ing domeffic aggravations of larceny; viz. Firft, in lar¬ 
cenies above (he value of twelve-pence, committed, 1. In a 
church or chapel, with or without violence, or breaking 
the fame. 2. In a booth or tent in a market or fair, in 
the day-time or in the night, by violence or breaking the 
fame, the owner or fome of his family being therein. 3. 
By robbing a dwelling houfe in the day-time (which rob- 
iing implies a breaking), any perfon being therein. 4. In 
kjoh. XII. No. 826. 
a dwelling houfe by day or by night, without breaking 
the fttme, any perfon being therein and put in fear; which 
amounts in law to a robbery; and in both thefe laft cafes 
the acceffory before the fad is alfo excluded from his 
clergy. Secondly, In larcenies to the value of five fallings, 
committed, 1. By breaking any dwelling-lioufe, or any 
out-houfe, (hop, or warehoufe, thereunto belonging, in the 
day-time, although no perfon be therein ; which alfo now 
extends to aiders, abettors, and acceffories before the fad, 
2. By privately ftealing goods, wares, or merchandife, in 
any Ihop, warehoufe, coach-houfe, or liable, by day or by 
night; though the fame be not broken open, and though 
no perfon be therein ; which likewife extends to fuch as 
affift, hire, or command the offence to be committed. 
Laftly, In larcenies to the value of forty fillings in a dwell- 
ing-houfe, or its out-houfes, although the fame be not 
broken, and w hether any perfon be therein or not; unlefs 
committed again ft their mailers by apprentices under the 
age of fifteen. This alfo extends to thofe who aid by al¬ 
lifting in the commiffion of any fuch offence. 
2. Larceny from the perfon, is either by privately ftealing, 
or by open and violent affault, which is ufually called rob¬ 
bery. The offence of privately ftealing from a man's per¬ 
fon, as by picking his pocket or the like, privily, without 
his knowledge, was debarred of the benefit of clergy fo 
early as by the ftatute 8 Eliz. c. 4. But then it mult be 
fuch a larceny as Hands in need of the benefit of clergy, 
viz. of above the value of nd. elfe the offender fhall not 
have judgment of death. For the ftatute created no new 
offence ; but only took away the benefit of clergy, which 
was a matter of grace, and left the thief to the regular 
judgment of the anciept law. This feverity feems to be 
owing to the eafe with which fuch offences are committed, 
the difficulty of guarding againft them, and the boldnefs 
with which they were praflifed (even in the queen's 
court and prefence) at the time when this ftatute was made. 
Befides that' this is an infringement of property in the 
manual occupation or corporal poflelfion of the owner, 
which was an offence even in a Hate of nature ; and there¬ 
fore the faccularii, or cutpurfes, were more feverely pu- 
nifhed than common thieves by the Roman and Athenian 
laws. As to open and violent larceny from the perfon, 
fee the article Robbery. 
The latitude which juries allow themfelves in eftimating 
the value of property ftolen, with a view to the punifh- 
ment which is to be the confequence of their verdift, is 
an evil of very great magnitude. Nothing can be more 
pernicious, than that jurymen (hould think lightly of the 
important duties they are called upon to difeharge, or 
(hould acquire a habit of trifling with the folemn oaths 
they take. And yet, ever fince the paffing of the afts 
which punifh with death the ftealing in (hops or houfes, 
or on-board (hips, property of the different values which 
are there mentioned, juries have, from motives of hu¬ 
manity, been in the habit of frequently finding by their 
verdifls, that the things ftolen were worth much lefs than 
was clearly proved to be their value. It is held, indeed, 
by fome of the judges, that juries, in favour of life, may 
fairly, in fixing the value of the property, take into their 
confideration the depreciation of money which has taken 
place fince the ftatutes palfed ; or, in the words of Mr. 
Juftice Blackilone, “may reduce the prefent nominal va¬ 
lue of money to its ancient ftandard.” Comm. iv. 239. 
To (how, however, to what an extent juries have affumed 
to themfelves a power of difpenfing with the law in this 
refpeft, it will be proper to refer to a few cafes which are 
of fuch a kind, that it is difficult to imagine by what ca- 
luiftry the jury could have been reconciled to their verdift. 
Elizabeth Hobbs was tried in September 1732, (which 
was only thirty-three years after the aft of king William, 
and only feventeen after the aft of queen Anne, a period 
during which there had fcarcely been any fenfible dimi¬ 
nution in the value of money,) for ftealing in a dvvelling- 
houfe one broad piece, two guineas, two half-guineas, 
and forty-four (hillings, in money. She confefled the 
faft,. and the jury found her guilty; but found that the 
3 Q money 
