[1] Skeat, _Etym_. Dict. (1898), _s.v_. Caxton in 1481 has
"lapwynches" (_Reynard the Fox_, cap. 27). The first part of the word
is from _hleápan_, to leap; the second part is "wink" (O.H.G.
_winchan_, Ger. _wanken_, to waver). Popular etymology has given the
word its present form, as if it meant "wing-flapper," from "lap," a
fold or flap of a garment.
[2] There is a prevalent belief that many of the eggs sold as
"plovers'" are those of rooks, but no notion can be more absurd,
since the appearance of the two is wholly unlike. Those of the
redshank, of the golden plover (to a small extent), and enormous
numbers of those of the black-headed gull, and in certain places of
some of the terns are, however, sold as lapwings', having a certain
similarity of shell to the latter, and a difference of flavour only
to be detected by a fine palate.
[3] This sounds like _pee-weet_, with some variety of intonation.
Hence the names peewit, peaseweep and teuchit, commonly applied in
some parts of Britain to this bird--though the first is that by which
one of the smaller gulls, _Larus ridibundus_ (see GULL), is known in
the districts it frequents. In Sweden _Vipa_, in Germany _Kiebitz_,
in Holland _Kiewiet_, and in France _Dixhuit_, are names of the
lapwing, given to it from its usual cry. Other English names are
green plover and hornpie--the latter from its long hornlike crest and
pied plumage. The lapwing's conspicuous crest seems to have been the
cause of a common blunder among English writers of the middle ages,
who translated the Latin word _Upupa_, property hoopoe, by lapwing,
as being the crested bird with which they were best acquainted. In
like manner other writers of the same or an earlier period latinized
lapwing by _Egrettides_ (plural), and rendered that again into
English as egrets--the tuft of feathers misleading them also. The
word _Vanellus_ is from _vannus_, the fan used for winnowing corn,
and refers to the audible beating of the bird's wings.
LAPWORTH, CHARLES (1842- ), English geologist, was born at Faringdon in
Berkshire on the 30th of September 1842. He was educated partly in the
village of Buckland in the same county, and afterwards in the training
college at Culham, near Oxford (1862-1864). He was then appointed master
in a school connected with the Episcopal church at Galashiels, where he
remained eleven years. Geology came to absorb all his leisure time, and
he commenced to investigate the Silurian rocks of the Southern Uplands,
and to study the graptolites and other fossils which mark horizons in
the great series of Lower Palaeozoic rocks. His first paper on the Lower
Silurian rocks of Galashiels was published in 1870, and from that date
onwards he continued to enrich our knowledge of the southern uplands of
Scotland until the publication by the Geological Society of his masterly
papers on _The Moffat Series_ (1878) and _The Girvan Succession_ (1882).
Meanwhile in 1875 he became an assistant master in the Madras College,
St Andrews, and in 1881 professor of geology and mineralogy (afterwards
geology and physiography) in the Mason College, now University of
Birmingham. In 1882 he started work in the Durness-Eriboll district of
the Scottish Highlands, and made out the true succession of the rocks,
and interpreted the complicated structure which had baffled most of the
previous observers. His results were published in "The Secret of the
Highlands" (_Geol. Mag._, 1883). His subsequent work includes papers on
the Cambrian rocks of Nuneaton and the Ordovician rocks of Shropshire.
The term Ordovician was introduced by him in 1879 for the strata between
the base of the Lower Llandovery formation and that of the Lower Arenig;
and it was intended to settle the confusion arising from the use by some
writers of Lower Silurian and by others of Upper Cambrian for the same
set of rocks. The term Ordovician is now generally adopted. Professor
Lapworth was elected F.R.S. in 1888, he received a royal medal in 1891,
and was awarded the Wollaston medal by the Geological Society in 1899.
He was president of the Geological Society, 1902-1904. His _Intermediate
Text-book of Geology_ was published in 1899.
See article, with portrait and bibliography, in _Geol. Mag._ (July
1901).
LAR, a city of Persia, capital of Laristan, in 27° 30´ N., 53° 58´ E.,
180 m. from Shiraz and 75 from the coast at Bander Lingah. It stands at
the foot of a mountain range in an extensive plain covered with palm
trees, and was once a flourishing place, but a large portion is in
ruins, and the population which early in the 18th century numbered
50,000 is reduced to 8000. There are still some good buildings, of which
the most prominent are the old bazaar consisting of four arcades each
180 ft. long, 14 broad and 22 high, radiating from a domed centre 30 ft.
high, an old stone mosque and many cisterns. The crest of a steep
limestone hill immediately behind the town and rising 150 ft. above the
plain is crowned by the ruins of a castle formerly deemed impregnable.
Just below the castle is a well sunk 200 ft. in the rock. The
tower-flanked mud wall which surrounds the town is for the most part in
ruins.
LARA, western state of Venezuela, lying in the angle formed by the
parting of the N. and N.E. ranges of the Cordillera de Mérida and
extending N.E. with converging frontiers to the Caribbean. Pop. (1905
estimate) 272,252. The greater part of its surface is mountainous, with
elevated fertile valleys which have a temperate climate. The Tocuyo
river rises in the S.W. angle of the state and flows N.E. to the
Caribbean with a total length of 287 m. A narrow-gauge railway, the
"South-western," owned by British capitalists, runs from the port of
Tucacas 55 m. S.W. to Barquisimeto by way of the Aroa copper-mining
district. Lara produces wheat and other cereals, coffee, sugar, tobacco,
neat cattle, sheep and various mineral ores, including silver, copper,
iron, lead, bismuth and antimony. The capital, Barquisimeto, is one of
the largest and most progressive of the inland cities of Venezuela.
Carora is also prominent as a commercial centre. Tocuyo (pop. in 1891,
15,383), 40 m. S.W. of Barquisimeto, is an important commercial and
mining town, over 2000 ft. above sea-level, in the midst of a rich
agricultural and pastoral region. Yaritagua (pop. about 12,000), 20 m.
E. of Barquisimeto, and 1026 ft. above the sea, is known for its cigar
manufactories.
LARAISH (_El Araish_), a port in northern Morocco on the Atlantic coast
in 35° 13´ N., 6° 9´ W., 43 m. by sea S. by W. of Tangier, picturesquely
situated on the left bank of the estuary of the Wad Lekkus. Pop. 6000 to
7000. The river, being fairly deep inside the bar, made this a favourite
port for the Salli rovers to winter in, but the quantity of alluvial
soil brought down threatens to close the port. The town is well situated
for defence, its walls are in fair condition, and it has ten forts, all
supplied with old-fashioned guns. Traces of the Spanish occupation from
1610-1689 are to be seen in the towers whose names are given by Tissot
as those of St Stephen, St James and that of the Jews, with the Castle
of Our Lady of Europe, now the kasbah or citadel. The most remarkable
feature of Laraish is its fine large market-place inside the town with a
low colonnade in front of very small shops. The streets, though narrow
and steep, are generally paved. Its chief exports are oranges, millet,
dra and other cereals, goat-hair and skins, sheepskins, wool and
fullers' earth. The wool goes chiefly to Marseilles. The annual value of
the trade is from £400,000 to £500,000.
In 1780 all the Europeans in Laraish were expelled by Mohammed XVI.,
although in 1786 the monopoly of its trade had been granted to Holland,
even its export of wheat. In 1787 the Moors were still building pirate
vessels here, the timber for which came from the neighbouring forest of
M'amora. Not far from the town are the remains of what is believed to be
a Phoenician city, Shammish, mentioned by Idrisi, who makes no allusion
to Laraish. It is not, however, improbable from a passage in Scylax that
the site of the present town was occupied by a Libyan settlement.
Tradition also connects Laraish with the garden of the Hesperides,
'_Arasi_ being the Arabic for "pleasure-gardens," and the "golden
apples" perhaps the familiar oranges.
LARAMIE, a city and the county-seat of Albany county, Wyoming, U.S.A.,
on the Laramie river, 57 m. by rail N.W. of Cheyenne. Pop. (1900) 8207,
of whom 1280 were foreign-born; (1905) 7601; (1910) 8237. It is served
by the Union Pacific and the Laramie, Hahn's Peak & Pacific railways,
the latter extending from Laramie to Centennial (30 m.). The city is
situated on the Laramie Plains, at an elevation of 7165 ft., and is
hemmed in on three sides by picturesque mountains. It has a public
library, a United States Government building and hospitals, and is the
seat of the university of Wyoming and of a Protestant Episcopal
missionary bishopric. There is a state fish hatchery in the vicinity.
The university (part of the public school system of the state) was
founded in 1886, was opened in 1887, and embraces a College of Liberal
Arts and Graduate School, a Normal School, a College of Agriculture and
the Mechanic Arts, an Agricultural Experiment Station (established by a
Federal appropriation), a College of Engineering, a School of Music, a
Preparatory School and a Summer School. Laramie is a supply and
distributing centre for a live-stock raising and mining
region--particularly coal mining, though gold, silver, copper and iron
are also found. The Union Pacific Railroad Company has machine shops,
repair shops and rolling mills at Laramie, and, a short distance S. of
the city, ice-houses and a tie-preserving plant. The manufactures
include glass, leather, flour, plaster and pressed brick, the brick
being made from shale obtained in the vicinity. The municipality owns
and operates the water-works; the water is obtained from large springs
about 2½ m. distant. Laramie was settled in 1868, by people largely from
New England, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, and was named in honour of
Jacques Laramie, a French fur trader. It was first chartered as a city
in 1868 by the legislature of Dakota, and was rechartered by the
legislature of Wyoming in 1873.
LARBERT, a parish and town of Stirlingshire, Scotland. Pop. of parish
(1901) 6500, of town, 1442. The town is situated on the Carron, 8 m. S.
by E. of Stirling by the North British and Caledonian railways, the
junction being an important station for traffic from the south by the
West Coast route. Coal-mining is the chief industry. The principal
buildings are the church, finely placed overlooking the river, the
Stirling district asylum and the Scottish National Institution for
imbecile children. In the churchyard is a monument to James Bruce, the
Abyssinian traveller, who was born and died at Kinnaird House, 2½ m.
N.E. Two m. N. by W. are the ruins of Torwood Castle and the remains of
Torwood forest, to which Sir William Wallace retired after his defeat at
Falkirk (1298). Near "Wallace's oak," in which the patriot concealed
himself, Donald Cargill (1619-1681), the Covenanter, excommunicated
Charles II. and James, duke of York, in 1680. The fragment of an old
round building is said to be the relic of one of the very few "brochs,"
or round towers, found in the Lowlands.
LARCENY (an adaptation of Fr. _larcin_, O. Fr. _larrecin_, from Lat.
_latrocinium_, theft, _latio_, robber), the unlawful taking and carrying
away of things personal, with intent to deprive the rightful owner of
the same. The term _theft_, sometimes used as a synonym of larceny, is
in reality a broader term, applying to all cases of depriving another of
his property whether by removing or withholding it, and includes
larceny, robbery, cheating, embezzlement, breach of trust, &c.
Larceny is, in modern legal systems, universally treated as a crime, but
the conception of it as a crime is not one belonging to the earliest
stage of law. To its latest period Roman law regarded larceny or theft
(_furtum_) as a delict _prima facie_ pursued by a civil remedy--the
_actio furti_ for a penalty, the _vindicatio_ or _condictio_ for the
stolen property itself or its value. In later times, a criminal remedy
to meet the graver crimes gradually grew up by the side of the civil,
and in the time of Justinian the criminal remedy, where it existed, took
precedence of the civil (_Cod._ iii. 8. 4). But to the last criminal
proceedings could only be taken in serious cases, e.g. against stealers
of cattle (_abigei_) or the clothes of bathers (_balnearii_). The
punishment was death, banishment, or labour in the mines or on public
works. In the main the Roman law coincides with the English law. The
definition as given in the _Institutes_ (iv. 1. 1) is "furtum est
contrectatio rei fraudulosa, vel ipsius rei, vel etiam ejus usus
possessionisve," to which the _Digest_ (xlvii. 2. 1, 3) adds "lucri
faciendi gratia." The earliest English definition, that of Bracton
(150b), runs thus: "furtum est secundum leges contrectatio rei alienae
fraudulenta cum animo furandi invito illo domino cujus res illa fuerit."
Bracton omits the "lucri faciendi gratia" of the Roman definition,
because in English law the motive is immaterial,[1] and the "usus ejus
possessionisve," because the definition includes an intent to deprive
the owner of his property permanently. The "animo furandi" and "invito
domino" of Bracton's definition are expansions for the sake of greater
clearness. They seem to have been implied in Roman law. _Furtum_ is on
the whole a more comprehensive term than larceny. This difference no
doubt arises from the tendency to extend the bounds of a delict and to
limit the bounds of a crime. Thus it was _furtum_ (but it would not be
theft at English common law) to use a deposit of pledge contrary to the
wishes of the owner, to retain goods found, or to steal a human being,
such as a slave or _filius familias_ (a special form of _furtum_ called
_plagium_). The latter would be in English law an abduction under
certain circumstances but not a theft. One of two married persons could
not commit _furtum_ as against the other, but larceny may be so
committed in England since the Married Women's Property Act 1882. As a
_furtum_ was merely a delict, the _obligatio ex delicto_ could be
extinguished by agreement between the parties; this cannot be done in
England. In another direction English law is more considerate of the
rights of third parties than was Roman. The thief can give a good title
to stolen goods; in Roman law he could not do so, except in the single
case of a _hereditas_ acquired by _usucapio_. The development of the law
of _furtum_ at Rome is historically interesting, for even in its latest
period is found a relic of one of the most primitive theories of law
adopted by courts of justice: "They took as their guide the measure of
vengeance likely to be exacted by an aggrieved person under the
circumstances of the case" (Maine, _Ancient Law_, ch. x.). This explains
the reason of the division of _furtum_ into _manifestum_ and _nec
manifestum_. The manifest thief was one taken red-handed--"taken with
the manner," in the language of old English law. The Twelve Tables
denounced the punishment of death against the manifest thief, for that
would be the penalty demanded by the indignant owner in whose place the
judge stood. The severity of this penalty was afterwards mitigated by
the praetor, who substituted for it the payment of quadruple the value
of the thing stolen. The same penalty was also given by the praetor in
case of theft from a fire or a wreck, or of prevention of search. The
Twelve Tables mulcted the non-manifest thief in double the value of the
thing stolen. The actions for penalties were in addition to the action
for the stolen goods themselves or their value. The quadruple and double
penalties still remain in the legislation of Justinian. The search for
stolen goods, as it existed in the time of Gaius, was a survival of a
period when the injured person was, as in the case of summons (_in jus
vocatio_), his own executive officer. Such a search, by the Twelve
Tables, might be conducted in the house of the supposed thief by the
owner in person, naked except for a cincture, and carrying a platter in
his hand, safeguards apparently against any possibility of his making a
false charge by depositing some of his own property on his neighbour's
premises. This mode of search became obsolete before the time of
Justinian. Robbery (_bona vi rapta_) was violence added to _furtum_. By
the _actio vi bonorum raptorum_ quadruple the value could be recovered
if the action were brought within a year, only the value if brought
after the expiration of a year. The quadruple value included the stolen
thing itself, so that the penalty was in effect only a triple one. It
was inclusive, and not cumulative, as in _furtum_.
In England theft or larceny appears to have been very early regarded by
legislators as a matter calling for special attention. The pre-Conquest
compilations of laws are full of provisions on the subject. The earlier
laws appear to regard it as a delict which may be compounded for by
payment. Considerable distinctions of person are made, both in regard to
the owner and the thief. Thus, by the laws of Æthelberht, if a freeman
stole from the king he was to restore ninefold, if from a freeman or
from a dwelling, threefold. If a theow stole, he had only to make a
twofold reparation. In the laws of Alfred ordinary theft was still only
civil, but he who stole in a church was punished by the loss of his
hand. The laws of Ina named as the penalty death or redemption according
to the wer-gild of the thief. By the same laws the thief might be slain
if he fled or resisted. Gradually the severity of the punishment
increased. By the laws of Æthelstan death in a very cruel form was
inflicted. At a later date the _Leges Henrici Primi_ placed a thief in
the king's mercy, and his lands were forfeited. Putting out the eyes and
other kinds of mutilation were sometimes the punishment. The principle
of severity continued down to the 19th century, and until 1827 theft or
larceny of certain kinds remained capital. Both before and after the
Conquest local jurisdiction over thieves was a common franchise of lords
of manors, attended with some of the advantages of modern summary
jurisdiction.
Under the common law larceny was a felony. It was affected by numerous
statutes, the main object of legislation being to bring within the law
of larceny offences which were not larcenies at common law, either
because they were thefts of things of which there could be no larceny
at common law, e.g. beasts _ferae naturae_, title deeds or choses in
action, or because the common law regarded them merely as delicts for
which the remedy was by civil action, e.g. fraudulent breaches of
trust. The earliest act in the statutes of the realm dealing with
larceny appears to be the _Carta Forestae_ of 1225, by which fine or
imprisonment was inflicted for stealing the king's deer. The next act
appears to be the statute of Westminster the First (1275), dealing
again with stealing deer. It seems as though the beginning of
legislation on the subject was for the purpose of protecting the
chases and parks of the king and the nobility. A very large number of
the old acts are named in the repealing act of 1827. An act of the
same date removed the old distinction between grand and petit
larceny.[2] The former was theft of goods above the value of twelve
pence, in the house of the owner, not from the person, or by night,
and was a capital crime. It was petit larceny where the value was
twelve pence or under, the punishment being imprisonment or whipping.
The gradual depreciation in the value of money afforded good ground
for Sir Henry Spelman's sarcasm that, while everything else became
dearer, the life of man became continually cheaper. The distinction
between grand and petit larceny first appears in statute law in the
Statute of Westminster the First, c. 15, but it was not created for
the first time by that statute. It is found in some of the
pre-Conquest codes, as that of Æthelstan, and it is recognized in the
_Leges Henrici Primi_. A distinction between simple and compound
larceny is still found in the books. The latter is larceny accompanied
by circumstances of aggravation, as that it is in a dwelling-house or
from the person. The law of larceny is now contained chiefly in the
Larceny Act 1861 (which extends to England and Ireland), a
comprehensive enactment including larceny, embezzlement, fraud by
bailees, agents, bankers, factors, and trustees, sacrilege, burglary,
housebreaking, robbery, obtaining money by threats or by false
pretences, and receiving stolen goods, and prescribing procedure, both
civil and criminal. There are, however, other acts in force dealing
with special cases of larceny, such as an act of Henry VIII. as to
stealing the goods of the king, and the Game, Post-Office and Merchant
Shipping Acts. There are separate acts providing for larceny by a
partner of partnership property, and by a husband or wife of the
property of the other (Married Women's Property Act 1882). Proceedings
against persons subject to naval or military law depend upon the Naval
Discipline Act 1866 and the Army Act 1881. There are several acts,
both before and after 1861, directing how the property is to be laid
in indictments for stealing the goods of counties, friendly societies,
trades unions, &c. The principal conditions which must exist in order
to constitute larceny are these: (1) there must be an actual taking
into the possession of the thief, though the smallest removal is
sufficient; (2) there must be an intent to deprive the owner of his
property for an indefinite period, and to assume the entire dominion
over it, an intent often described in Bracton's words as _animus
furandi_; (3) this intent must exist at the time of taking; (4) the
thing taken must be one capable of larceny either at common law or by
statute. One or two cases falling under the law of larceny are of
special interest. It was held more than once that a servant taking
corn to feed his master's horses, but without any intention of
applying it for his own benefit, was guilty of larceny. To remedy this
hardship, the Misappropriation of Servants Act 1863 was passed to
declare such an act not to be felony. The case of appropriation of
goods which have been found has led to some difficulty. It now seems
to be the law that in order to constitute a larceny of lost goods
there must be a felonious intent at the time of finding, that is, an
intent to deprive the owner of them, coupled with reasonable means at
the same time of knowing the owner. The mere retention of the goods
when the owner has become known to the finder does not make the
retention criminal. Larceny of money may be committed when the money
is paid by mistake, if the prisoner took it _animo furandi_. In two
noteworthy cases the question was argued before a very full court for
crown cases reserved, and in each case there was a striking difference
of opinion. In _R._ v. _Middleton_, 1873, L.R. 2 C.C.R., 38, the
prisoner, a depositor in a post-office savings bank, received by the
mistake of the clerk a larger sum that he was entitled to. The jury
found that he had the _animus furandi_ at the time of taking the
money, and that he knew it to be the money of the postmaster-general.
The majority of the court held it to be larceny. In a case in 1885
(_R._ v. _Ashwell_, L.R. 16 Q.B.D. 190), where the prosecutor gave the
prisoner a sovereign believing it to be a shilling, and the prisoner
took it under that belief, but afterwards discovered its value and
retained it, the court was equally divided as to whether the prisoner
was guilty of larceny at common law, but held that he was not guilty
of larceny as a bailee. Legislation has considerably affected the
procedure in prosecutions for larceny. The inconveniences of the
common law rules of interpretation of indictments led to certain
amendments of the law, now contained in the Larceny Act, for the
purpose of avoiding the frequent failures of justice owing to the
strictness with which indictments were construed. Three larcenies of
property of the same person within six months may now be charged in
one indictment. On an indictment for larceny the prisoner may be found
guilty of embezzlement, and _vice versa_; and if the prisoner be
indicted for obtaining goods by false pretences, and the offence turn
out to be larceny, he is not entitled to be acquitted of the
misdemeanour. A count for receiving may be joined with the count for
stealing. In many cases it is unnecessary to allege or prove ownership
of the property the subject of the indictment. The act also contains
numerous provisions as to venue and the apprehension of offenders. In
another direction the powers of courts of Summary Jurisdiction (q.v.)
have been extended, in the case of charges of larceny, embezzlement
and receiving stolen goods, against children and young persons and
against adults pleading guilty or waiving their right to trial by
jury. The maximum punishment for larceny is fourteen years' penal
servitude, but this can only be inflicted in certain exceptional
cases, such as horse or cattle stealing and larceny by a servant or a
person in the service of the crown or the police. The extreme
punishment for simple larceny after a previous conviction for felony
is ten years' penal servitude. Whipping may be part of the sentence on
boys under sixteen.
_Scotland._--A vast number of acts of the Scottish parliament dealt with
larceny. The general policy of the acts was to make larceny what was not
larceny at common law, e.g. stealing fruit, dogs, hawks or deer, and to
extend the remedies, e.g. by giving the justiciar authority throughout
the kingdom, by making the master in the case of theft by the servant
liable to give the latter up to justice, or by allowing the use of
firearms against thieves. The general result of legislation in England
and Scotland has been to assimilate the law of larceny in both kingdoms.
As a rule, what would be larceny in one would be larceny in the other.
_United Stales._--The law depends almost entirely upon state
legislation, and is in general accordance with that of England. The only
acts of Congress bearing on the subject deal with larceny in the army
and navy, and with larceny and receiving on the high seas or in any
place under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, e.g.
Alaska.
_Alaska._--Stealing any goods, chattels, government note, bank note,
or other thing in action, books of account, &c., is larceny:
punishment, imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years
if the property stolen is in value over $35. Larceny in any
dwelling-house, warehouse, steamship, church, &c., is punishable by
imprisonment for not less than one nor more than seven years. Larceny
of a horse, mule, ass, bull, steer, cow or reindeer is punishable by
imprisonment for not less than one nor more than fifteen years.
Wilfully altering or defacing marks or brands on such animals is
larceny (Pen. Code Alaska, § 45, 1899).
_Arizona._--Appropriating property found without due inquiry for the
owner is larceny (Penal Code, § 442). "Dogs are property and of the
value of _one dollar each_ within the meaning of the terms 'property'
and 'value' as used in this chapter" (_id._ § 448). Property includes
a passage ticket though never issued. Persons stealing property in
another state or county, or who receive it knowing it to be stolen and
bring it into Arizona, may be convicted and punished as if the offence
was committed there (_id._ § 454). Stealing gas or water from a main
is a misdemeanour.
_Iowa._--It is larceny to steal electricity, gas or water from wires,
meters or mains (L. 1903, ch. 132).
_New York._--Larceny as defined by § 528 of the Penal Code includes
also embezzlement, obtaining property by false pretences, and
felonious breach of trust (_People_ v. _Dumar_, 106 N.Y. 508), but the
method of proof required to establish these offences has not been
changed. Grand larceny in the _first degree_ is (a) stealing property
of any value in the night time; (b) of $25 in value or more at night
from a dwelling house, vessel or railway car; (c) of the value of more
than $500 in any manner; in the _second degree_ (a) stealing in any
manner property of the value of over $25 and under $500; (b) taking
from the person property of any value; (c) stealing any record of a
court or other record filed with any public officer. Every other
larceny is petit larceny. "Value" of any stock, bond or security
having a market value is the amount of money due thereon or what, in
any contingency, might be collected thereon; of any passenger ticket
the price it is usually sold at. The value of anything else not fixed
by statute is its market value. Grand larceny, in the first degree, is
punishable by imprisonment not exceeding ten years; in the second
degree, not exceeding five years. Petit larceny is a misdemeanour
(Penal Code, §§ 530-535). Bringing stolen goods into the state knowing
them to be stolen is punishable as larceny within the state (_id._ §
540). A "pay ticket" for removing a load of snow may be the subject of
larceny and its value the amount to be paid on it. (_People_ v.
_Fletcher_ [1906] 110 App. D. 231).
_Kansas._--The owner of goods who takes them from a railroad company
with intent to defeat its lien for transportation charges is guilty of
larceny. (_Atchison Co._ v. _Hinsdell_ [1907] 90 Pac. Rep. 800).
_Massachusetts._--Larceny includes embezzlement and obtaining money by
false pretences. (Rev. L. 1902, ch. 218, § 40.) The failing to restore
to or to notify the owner of property removed from premises on fire is
larceny (_id._ ch. 208, § 22). It is larceny to purchase property
(payment for which is to be made on or before delivery) by means of a
false pretence as to means or ability to pay, provided such pretence
is signed by the person to be charged. Indictment for stealing a will
need not contain an allegation of value (_id._ § 29). A person
convicted either as accessory or principal of three distinct larcenies
shall be adjudged "a common and notorious thief" and may be imprisoned
for not more than twenty years (_id._ 31). On second conviction for
larceny of a bicycle, the thief may be imprisoned for not more than
five years. Larceny of things annexed to realty is punishable as if it
were a larceny of personal property (_id._ §§ 33, 35).
_Ohio._--Stealing "anything of value" is larceny (Bates Stats. §
6856). Tapping gas pipes is punishable by fine or imprisonment for not
more than thirty days. Stealing timber having "timber dealers'" trade
mark, or removing it from a stream, is punishable by a fine of not
less than $20.
_Utah._--It is grand larceny to alter the mark or brand on an animal
(L. 1905, ch. 38).
_Wyoming._--For branding or altering or defacing the brand on cattle
with intent to steal, the penalty is imprisonment for not more than
five years. It is larceny for a bailee to convert with intent to steal
goods left with or found by him (Rev. Stats. §§ 4986, 4989).
_Washington._--A horse not branded, but under Code § 6861 an "outlaw,"
the owner being unknown, can be the subject of a larceny, having been
held to be property of the state. (_State_ v. _Eddy_ [1907], 90 Pac.
Rep. 641). For the third offence of such a larceny the penalty is
imprisonment for _life_ (L. 1903, ch. 86).
See also EMBEZZLEMENT; CHEATING; FALSE PRETENCES; ROBBERY; STOLEN
GOODS.