66 another county, and there converted it.85 So it sometimes happens that the prosecution may be had in the county in which defendant's duties respecting the property were to be performed, regardless of where the misappropriation occurred. But it has been held that the venue should not be laid in the county where defendant received the property unless its receipt was accompanied with the intent at the time on his part to secret it or to convert it to his own use, 67 and that it should be charged that the embezzlement was committed in the county in which defendant fraudulently converted or secreted the property.68 By express Nebr.-Cohoe V. State, 82 Nebr. 744, 188 NW 1088. Oh.-State v. Bailey, 50 Oh. St. 636, 36 NE 233; Campbell v. State, 35 Oh. St. 70. Tex.-Brown v. State, 23 Tex. 214, 4 SW 588; Cohen v. State, Tex. A. 224. A. 20 70. Oh.-Campbell v. State, 35 Oh. St. Philippine.-U. S. v. Cardell, 23 Philippine 207. S. D.-State v. Allen, 21 S. D. 121, 110 NW 92. Tex.-Brown v. State, 23 Tex. A. 214, 4 SW 588. Wash.-State v. Hoshor, 26 Wash. 643, 67 P 386. Eng.-Rex v. Taylor, 3 B. & P. 596, 127 Reprint 322; Reg. v. Murdock, 2 Den. C. C. 298. [a] Conversion of proceeds of goods sold.-Where a contract of employment was made in Lucas county by which contract accused was authorized to canvass for the sale of and to sell his employer's goods in Sandusky county, and to account therefor in Lucas county weekly, either by letter or in person; and at his request goods were sent by express from his employer's place of business in Lucas county to him in Sandusky county, where he received and sold the same, converting part of the proceeds to his own use in Sandusky county, and part in the state of New York, and after the sale of the goods he wrote a false account of the transaction to his employers, addressed to them in Lucas county, which he mailed to them on the railroad train while absconding and which they received in Lucas county, it was held that accused might be indicted and tried in Lucas county for the embezzlement thus committed, State v. Bailey, 50 Oh. St. 636, 36 NE 233. The [§ 273] 14. False Pretenses or Fraud." general rule is that the crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses is completed where the money or property is obtained, and that, if the pretenses are made within one jurisdiction and the money or property is obtained in another, the person making the representations must be indicted within the latter jurisdiction.72 The same rule is laid in the county in which the bail- | 186 SW 320; O'Marrow v. State, (Tex. ment arose, and in which defendant | Cr.) 147 SW 252; Schweir v. State, 50 had to account for and pay over the Tex. Cr. 119, 94 SW 1049; Cohen v. money. Cohoe v. State, 82 Nebr. 744, State, 20 Tex. A. 224; Cole v. State, 118 NW 1088. 16 Tex. A. 461. [d] Evidence held insufficient to show refusal.-Evidence that defendant was in a certain county at a certain time, and there failed to pay over money collected by him as agent, and payable there according to his contract, without evidence that the collections were made in that county, or that a demand had there been made for the money so retained, will not sustain a conviction for embezzlement in such county. Dix v. State, 89 Wis. 250, 61 NW 760. [e] Refusal to account for moneys collected.-Where defendant, as agent, received certain money in R county and carried it into B county, in which county, under the terms of his contract with his principal, it was his duty to account for such money, and there denied that he had collected any money for his principal, and refused to settle with him, it was held that the venue was properly laid in B county. Brown v. State, 23 Tex. A. 214, 4 SW 588. 66. State v. Whiteman, 9 Wash. 402, 37 P 659 (where defendant, as the assignee of a partnership, was intrusted with its moneys and funds and it appeared that all of the transactions by which the money came into the possession of defendant took place in the county of P, and that all of his duties growing out of the trust should have been performed in that county, and, although it did not appear affirmatively that at the time he actually converted the money to his own use, and disposed of it for his own benefit, he was in the county of P, it was held that the venue was properly laid in that county, Hoyt, J., saying: "It would be a difficult matter in almost all cases for the state to show the exact location of the defendant at the time he appropriated the money to his own use, and when it is made to appear, as in this case, that his duty in reference to the money was confined to the county in which the prosecution is had, it is enough to at least prima facie establish the fact that the conversion was in the same county"). 67. Peo. v. Murphy, 51 Cal. 376. [a] In Missouri the statute defining embezzlement does not make a failure to account for a trust fund or a fund received by an agent or officer an offense, but the essence of the offense is the wrongful conversion of the fund; and while failure to account therefor may constitute evidence tending to establish the act of conversion, the failure to account does not constitute the offense of embezzlement of the fund, and the courts of the county in which there was merely a failure to account do not have jurisdiction where the money was actually received and converted outside such county. State v. Mispagel, 207 Mo. 557, 106 SW 513. [b] Embezzlement is a continuing offense (1) which may be prosecuted in any jurisdiction where accused may be, and where there is a continued liability and a failure to account for and pay over the money. In re Richter, 100 Fed. 295. (2) The fact that an officer or agent of a corporation having its office in one of the states took funds of the corporation to Alaska for investment and failed to invest them, or to account for them after his return, does not vest the courts of Alaska with exclusive jurisdiction to try him for embezzlement. In re Richter supra. [c] Larceny by bailee.-The venue of larceny of money by a bailee, where the transaction extends through different counties, may be 69. 68. Peo. v. Murphy, 51 Cal. 376. McDaniel v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 70. Cal.-Peo. v. Garcia, 25 Cal. 531. Ind.-Beaty v. State, 82 Ind. 228. N. Y.-Peo. v. Britton, 134 App. Div. 275, 118 NYS 989; Peo. V. Mitchell, 49 App. Div. 531, 63 NYS 522, 14 N. Y. Cr. 539 [aff 168 N. Y. 604 mem, 61 NE 182 mem]. Or. State v. Barnett, 15 Or. 77, 14 P 737. Tex.-Pearce v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 507, 98 SW 861; Burk v.. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 185, 95 SW 1064; Brown v. State, 23 Tex. A. 214, 4 SW 588; Cohen v. State, 20 Tex. A. 224; Reed v. State, 16 Tex. A. 586; Cole v. State, 16 Tex. A. 461. [a] The word "property" includes money, and one who has embezzled money and taken it into any county in the state may be prosecuted therefor in such county. Brown v. State, 23 Tex. Cr. 214, 4 SW 588, 589. 71. See also supra § 208. 72. U. S.-U. S. v. Watkins, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,649, 3 Cranch C. C. 441. Cal.-Peo. v. Cummings, 123 Cal. 269, 55 P 898. Fla.-Connor v. State, 29 Fla. 455, 10 S 891, 30 AmSR 126. Ga.-Garner v. State, 100 Ga. 257, 28 SE 24; Davis v. State, (A.) 92 SE 552. Ind.-Stewart v. Jessup, 51 Ind. 413, 19 AmR 739. Iowa.-State v. Smith, 162 Iowa 336, 144 NW 32, 49 LRANS 834; State v. Jackson, 128 Iowa 543, 105 NW 51; State v. Tripp, 113 Iowa 698, 84 NW 546; State v. House, 55 Iowa 466, 8 NW 307. Ky.-Com. v. Van Tuyl, 1 Metc. 1, 71 AmD 455. Mass.-Com. v. Taylor, 105 Mass. 172. To same effect Com. v. Wood, 142 Mass. 459, 8 NE 432. Mich.-Peo. V. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268, 9 NW 406. Miss. Murray v. State, 98 Miss. 594, 54 S 72 (selling cotton on which there is a landlord's lien). Mo.-State v. Terry, 109 Mo. 601, 19 SW 206; State v. Lichliter, 95 Mo. 402, 8 SW 720; State v. Shaeffer, 89 Mo. 271, 1 SW 293; State v. Dennis, 80 Mo. 589. Nebr.-Ex p. Parker, 11 Nebr. 309, 9 NW 33. N. Y.-Peo. v. Adams, 3 Den. 190, 45 AmD 468 [aff 1 N. Y. 173]; Peo. v. Sully, 5 Park. Cr. 142; Skiff v. Peo., 2 Park. Cr. 139. Oh.-Norris v. State, 25 Oh. St. 217, 18 AmR 291. Pa.-Com. V. Schmunk, 22 Pa. Super. 348 [aff 207 Pa. 544]; Com. v. Mayer, & Pa. Dist. 571; Com. v. Everitt, 8 Pa. Dist. 276; Com. v. Karpouski, 3 Pa. Dist, 772, 15 Pa. Co. 280 [aff 167 Pa. 225, 31 A 572]: Com. v. Smith, 1 PaLJR 400, 3 PaLJ 34. Tex-Dechard v. State, (Cr.) 57 SW 813; Sims v. State, 28 Tex. A. 447, 13 SW 653. Wis.-Bates v. State, 124 Wis. 612, 103 NW 251, 4 AnnCas 365 note. applicable to the obtaining of money by means of the confidence game.73 Transmission by mail. Where, induced by false pretenses, one transmits by mail to defendant money, drafts, or other writings, such mailing is a delivery to the postmaster as the agent of defendant, to be forwarded to him, and the offense is complete where the letter is mailed, and is indictable at such place."* 76 Delivery by carrier. Where the false pretenses are made in one jurisdiction, and in reliance upon such pretenses goods are delivered to a carrier for shipment to defendant, the carrier acts as the agent of defendant so that the delivery to the carrier is a delivery to defendant; and accordingly the venue is properly laid in the county in which the goods are so delivered,75 unless there was a special agreement for delivery to the consignee in a county other than that from which the goods were shipped. Although the jurisdiction of such county has been held to be exclusive," it has also been held that there can be a conviction in the county where the goods are actually delivered to the hands of defendant." It has been held, however, that where the contract of purchase is void under the statute of frauds, the delivery to the carrier is not Eng. Reg. v. Ellis, [1899] 1 Q. B. 230; Reg. v. Holmes, 12 Q. B. D. 23; Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. & Ald. 95, 6 ECL 404, 106 Reprint 873; Reg. v. Dawson, 16 Cox C. C. 556; Reg. v. Stanbury, 9 Cox C. C. 94. [a] Where the false pretenses consist of a series of acts, part done in one county and part in another, the offense is not punishable, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, unless enough is done in one county to amount to a completed and punishable criminal act. State v. Fraker. 148 Mo. 143, 49 SW 1017. [b] Obtaining advances under contract of employment.-The venue for a prosecution, under Acts (1903) p 90, for obtaining advances under a contract of employment, is in the county where the advance is received, and where the accusation lays the venue in one county and the evidence discloses that the advance was made in another a conviction is erroneous. Dyas v. State, 126 Ga. 556, 55 SE 488. 73. Graham v. Peo., 181 Ill. 477, 55 NE 179, 47 LRA 731. 74. State v. Briggs, 74 Kan. 377, 86 P 447, 7 LRANS 278, 10 AnnCas 904; Com. v. Wood, 142 Mass. 459, 8 NE 432; Dechard v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 57 SW 813; Reg. v. Jones, 4 Cox C. C. 198; Reg. v. Cooke, 1 F. & F. 64. But see Reg. v. Holmes, 12 Q. B. D. 23 (holding that the venue is properly laid in the county where the letter containing the false pretense was mailed and the money was received). equivalent to a delivery to the purchaser, and the venue must be laid in the jurisdiction where the goods were received by defendant, and not in the jurisdiction where they were delivered to the carrier.79 By statute in some jurisdictions the crime may be prosecuted in any county in which the false pretenses were made, although it may have been consummated in another county.80 [274] 15. Forgery and Uttering. Questions as to the venue of prosecutions for forgery and uttering are elsewhere treated.81-82 [275] 16. Homicide.83 Where a mortal blow was inflicted or poison was given in one county and death ensued in another, it was doubted at common law whether the homicide could be tried in either.84 The courts, however, have held that there is jurisdiction in such a case, most of them holding that the prosecution should be in the county where the blow was given or where the poison was administered,85 while others have held that it should be in the county where the death occurred.86 remove this doubt and to prevent a failure of justice, the act of 2 and 3 Edward VI was passed in England, which established the venue in the county in which the death should take place.87 In the Cummings, 5 La. Ann. 330; State v. McCoy, 8 Rob. (La.) 545, 41 AmD 301; Riley V. State, 9 Humphr. (Tenn.) 646; Ex p. McNeeley, 36 W. Va. 84, 14 SE 436, 32 AmSR 831, 15 LRA 226. county to send him five hundred dol- Kan.-In re Stephenson, 67 Kan. Mass.-Com. v. Taylor, 105 Mass. 172. Mo.-State v. Lichliter, 95 Mo. 402, 8 SW 720. Oh. Norris v. State, 25 Oh. St. 217, 18 AmR 291. Pa.-Com. v. Karpowski, 167 Pa. 225, 31 A 572; Com. v. Balph, 18 Pa. Co. 242; Com. v. Goldstein, 3 Pa. Co. 121. Eng.-Reg. v. Leech, 7 Cox C. C. 100, 36 EngL&Eq 589; Reg. v. Jones, 4 Cox C. C. 198. 76. Com. v. Balph, 18 Pa. Co. 242. 77. Norris V. State, 25 Oh. St. 217, 18 AmR 291; Com. v. Mayer, 8 Pa. Dist. 571. 78. Com, v. Schmunk, 207 Pa. 544, 56 A 1088, 99 AmSR 801 [aff 22 Pa. Super 348]; Com. v. Fetterman, 29 Pa. Co. 46. See also supra § 208. 79. Ex p. Parker, 11 Nebr. 309, 9 NW 33. Friedman, 188 80. Iowa.-State V. Gibson, 132 [a] Begging Letter.-Where Oh.-Wilcox v. Nolze, 34 Oh. St 520. Eng. Reg. v. Leech, 7 Cox C. C. 100, 36 EngL&Eq 589; Reg. v. Jones, 1 Den. C. C. 551. 81-82. See Forgery [19 Cyc 1391]. To In 2 Hawkins P. C. c 25 § 35 it is said that "at the common law, if a man have died in one county of a stroke received in another, it seems to have been the more general opinion, that regularly the homicide was indictable in neither of them, because the offence was not compleat in either, and no grand jury would inquire of what happened out of their own county." In 1 Hawkins P. C. c 31 § 13, it was said that "it hath been holden by others, that if the corps were carried into the county where the stroke was given, the whole might be inquired of by a jury of the same county." 85. U. S.-U. S. v. Guiteau, 10 Fed. 161, 12 D. C. 498. Ala.-Green v. State, 66 Ala. 40, 41 AmR 744. Ga.-Roach v. State, 34 Ga. 78. Ind. Archer v. State, 106 Ind. 426, 7 NE 225. Kan.-State v. Bowen, 16 Kan. 475. Ky.-Fields v. Com., 152 Ky. 80, 153 SW 29; Com. v. Apkins, 148 Ky. 207, 146 SW 431, 39 LRANS 822, AnnCas1913E 465. Me.-State v. Kelly, 76 Me. 331, 334, 49 AmR 620. Md.-Stout v. State, 76 Md. 317, 25 A 299. Minn.-State v. Gessert, 21 Minn. 369. Mo.-State v. Blunt, 110 Mo. 322, 19 SW 650. N. J.-Hunter v. State, 40 N. J. L. 495; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499. Okl.-Moran v. Terr., 14 Okl. 544, 78 P 111 [aff 203 U. S. 96, 27 SCt 25, 51 L. ed. 105]; Albright v. Terr., 11 Okl. 497, 69 P 789; Litchfield v. State, 8 Okl. Cr. 164, 126 P 707, 45 LRANS 153; Loyd v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 76, 116 P 959. S. C.-State v. McCoomer, 79 S. C. 63, 60 SE 237. Tenn.-Riley v. State, 9 Humphr. 646. Wash.-State v. Baldwin, 15 Wash. 115, 45 P 650. p 83. See also supra § 210. 84. 4 Blackstone Comm. p 304; Chitty Cr. L. p 177; 1 East P. C. 361; 1 Hale P. C. 426; 2 Hawkins P. [b] Draft honored in another C. c 25 § 36; 1 Hawkins P. C. c county.-Where defendant, charged 31 § 13. 86. See also Green v. State, with obtaining money under false 66 Ala. 40, 41 AmR 744: Com. V. pretense, wrote from Cherokee coun- Jones, 118 Ky. 889, 82 SW 643, 26 Eng.-Rex v. Hargrave, 5 C. & P. 170, 24 ECL 509; 1 East P. C. p 361; 1 Hale P. C. p 426. State v. McCoy, 8 Rob. (La.) 545, 41 AmD 301. 87. 2 & 3 Edw. VI c 24 § 1 (pro ty to the person swindled in Houston KyL 867, 4 AnnCas 1192; State v. viding that "where any person or 98 [§ 278] 19. Kidnapping. An indictment for kidnapping or aiding and assisting therein is properly found and tried in the county in which the party alleged to have been kidnapped was seized and carried away, although he was also carried through or into another county or state." In such case he may be indicted properly in either county.1 United States, in many jurisdictions, the question | shipped by rail.97 [§ 276] 17. Illicit Cohabitation. A prosecution for unlawful cohabitation may be tried in any county where the unlawful act has been committed,93 but not elsewhere.94 [277] 18. Introducing Prohibited Property into State. The prosecution of the offense of unlawfully introducing intoxicating liquors into the state is not confined to the border county into which such liquors were first brought;95 and where the liquor so introduced into the state is carried into an interior county as a part of the original transaction the offense is committed in every portion of the state over which the liquor is transported.96 It has also been held that the offense of bringing infected animals into the state may be prosecuted in the interior county to which such animals were persons hereafter shall be feloni- 17 AmD 573. ously stricken or poisoned in one County, and die of the same stroke or poisoning in another County, that then an indictment thereof founden by jurors of the county where the death shall happen, whether it shall be founden before the coroner upon the sight of such dead body, or before the justices of peace, or other justices or commissioners which shall have authority to enquire of such offences, shall be as good and effectual in the law, as if the stroke or poisoning had been committed and done in the same county where the party shall die, or where such indictment shall be so founden; any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding"). See Com. v. Jones, 118 Ky. 889, 82 SW 643, 26 KyL 867, 4 AnnCas 1192. [a] By 7 Geo. IV the venue in all cases, when the offense is begun in one county and completed in another, may be laid in either county. Archbold Cr. Pr. p 68. [b] Statute as part of common law. The above statute "passed within a century before the settlement of Massachusetts, and manifestly suitable to our condition, would seem to have been part of our common law." Per Gray, J., in Com. v. Macloon, 101 Mass. 1, 9, 100 AmD 89. 88. Stout v. State, 76 Md. 317, 25 A 299; Robbins v. State, 8 Oh. St. 131. [a] Homicide by administering poison. The overt act of homicide by administering poison, within the meaning of a statute, consists not simply in prescribing or furnishing the poison, but also in directing and causing it to be taken, so that if the poison is prescribed and furnished in one county to a person who carries it into another county and there, under the directions given, takes it and becomes poisoned and dies of the poison, the administering is consummated and the crime committed, if committed at all, in the county where the person is poisoned. Robbins v. State, 8 Oh. St. 131. 89. Mass.-Com. v. Macloon, 101 Mass. 1, 100 AmD 89; Com. v. Parker, 2 Pick, 550. Mich.-Tyler v. Peo., 8 Mich. 320. 255. N. C.-State v. Orrell, 12 N. C. 139, [§ 279] 20. Killing Estray. In an indictment for unlawfully killing an estray, the venue should be laid in the county where the act was committed, and not in the county from which the animal strayed.2 3 [§ 280] 21. Larceny. Both at common law and under statutory provisions in most states one who steals property in one county and brings it into another may be indicted and tried for simple larceny in either county. It is considered that the possession of the stolen goods by the thief is a larceny in every county through or into which he carries them, because, as the legal possession still remains in the owner, every moment's continuance of the trespass and felony amounts to a new taking and asportation.5 Statutes to this effect do not violate the constitutional provision guaranteeing to the accused a trial in the county where the of S. C.-State v. Toomer, 25 S. C. L. 106, 2 & 3 Edw. VI c 24. 90. Fla. Smith v. State, 42 Fla. 605, 28 S 758. Ind. Archer v. State, 106 Ind. 426, 7 NE 225. Iowa.-Nash V. State, 2 Greene 286. Ky-Britton v. Com., 123 Ky. 411, 96 SW 556, 29 KyL 857; Hargis v. Parker, 85 SW 704, 27 KyL 441, 69 LRA 270; Com. v. Jones, 118 Ky. 889, 82 SW 643, 26 KyL 867, 4 AnnCas 1192. La.-State v. Fields, 51 La. Ann. 1239, 26 S 99; State v. Jones, 38 La. Ann. 792. Miss. Coleman v. State, 83 Miss. 290, 35 S 937, 64 LRA 807. Mo.-State v. Blunt, 110 Mo. 322, 19 SW 650; Ex p. Slater, 72 Mo. 102; Steerman v. State, 10 Mo. 503. N. M.-Hicks v. Terr., 6 N. M. 596, 30 P 872. N. Y.-Peo. v. Thorn, 21 Misc. 130, 47 NYS 46, 12 N. Y. Cr. 236. S. C.-State v. McCoomer, 79 S. C. Tex.-Navarro v. State, (Cr.) 43 Wis.-State v. Pauley, 12 Wis. 537. [a] Where a conspiracy to take the life of a person is formed in one county, and in pursuance thereof he is there seized and bound and is carried into another county and there killed, the murder may be prosecuted in either county. Archer v. State, 106 Ind. 426, 7 NE 225. 91. Ala.-Green v. State, 66 Ala. 40. 41 AmR 744. Fla. Smith v. State, 42 Fla. 605, 28 S 758. Ind. Archer v. State, 106 Ind. 426, Ky. Hargis v. Parker, 85 SW 704, Md.-Stout v. State, 76 Md. 317, 25 Mass.-Com. v. Macloon, 101 Mass. Mich. Tyler v. Peo., 8 Mich. 320. W. Va.-Ex p. McNeeley, 36 W. LRA 226. Wis.-State v. Pauley, 12 Wis. 537. 92. State v. Sweat, 16 S. C. 624. 93. Finney V. State, 3 Head (Tenn.) 544. 94. Peo. v. Price, 250 Ill. 109, 95 NE 68. 95. Fuqua v. State, (Ariz.) 165 P 311; Reynolds v. State, 18 Ariz. 388, 161 P 885. 96. Reynolds V. State, 18 Ariz. 388, 161 P 885. 97. Patrick v. State, 17 Wyo. 260, 98 P 588, 129 AmSR 1109. 98. Abduction and inveigling see supra § 264. 99. State v. Whaley, 2 Del. 538 (indictment for aiding and assisting in kidnapping and carrying away a slave). 1. State v. Whaley, 2 Del. 538. Brogden v. State, 44 Tex. 103. See also supra § 211., 2. 3. 4. 5. See cases infra note 5. U. S.-U. S. v. Haukey, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,328, 2 Cranch C. C. 65; U. S. v. Mason, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,738, 2 Cranch C. C. 410. Ala-Kidd v. State, 83 Ala. 58, 3 S 442; Whigenant v. State, 71 Ala. 383; Lucas v. State, 62 Ala. 26; Smith v. State, 55 Ala. 59; Aaron v. State, 39 Ala. 684; Crow v. State, 18 Ala. 541. V. Cal.-Peo. v. Staples, 91 Cal. 23. 27 P 523; Peo. v. Scott, 74 Cal. 94, 15 P 384; Peo. v. Robles, 29 Cal. 421; Peo. v. Garcia, 25 Cal. 531; Peo. Tyree, 21 Cal. A. 701, 132 P 784. Conn.-Rex v. Peas, 1 Root 69. Ga.-McCoy v. State, 123 Ga. 143, 51 SE 279; Morton v. State, 118 Ga. 306, 45 SE 395; Green v. State, 115 Ga. 254, 41 SE 642; Green v. State, 114 Ga. 918, 41 SE 55; Soule v. State, 71 Ga. 267; Tippins v. State, 14 Ga, 422. Hawaii.-Rex v. Parish, 1 Hawaii 58. Ind.-Jones v. State, 53 Ind. 235; Hurt v. State, 26 Ind. 106. Iowa.-State v. Lillard, 59 Iowa 479, 13 NW 637. Kan.-State v. Wade, 55 Kan. 693, 41 P 951; State v. Price, 55 Kan. 606, 40 P 1000; State v. Hunter, 50 Kan. 302. 32 P 37. Ky.-Johnson v. Com., 154 Ky. 742, 159 SW 560; Thomas v. Com., 15 SW 861, 12 KyL 903; Massie v. Com., 90 Ky. 485, 14 SW 419, 12 KyL 433. La.-State v. Sullivan, 49 La. Ann. 197, 21 S 688, 62 AmSR 644; State fense was committed." The rule applies when certain property is made the subject of larceny by statute. But it does not apply to compound lareeny, for all the elements of such offenses do not exist except in the first county.s The venue of lareeny from the person, for example, which is different from ordinary theft, is confined to the county where the property was taken." The same is true of larceny from the dwelling house, etc.10 The identical property stolen must be carried into the county of the prosecution before a conviction can be sus tained there.11 Moreover, to authorize the conviction of a thief for larceny in a county other than that in which the offense was first committed, he must have had control, actual or constructive, of the stolen property in such county.12 Larceny through an innocent agent occurs when the agent takes the property, and the venue is to be determined accordingly.13 [§ 281] 22. Libel. Questions as to the venue of a prosecution for libel will be treated elsewhere.14 v. McCoy, 42 La. Ann. 228, 7 S 330. | in Comal, whilst he might be con- who converts the property animo Me.-State v. Somerville, 21 Me. victed of a felony in Guadalupe, if furandi in a county other than that 14, 38 AmD 248; State v. Douglas, 17 there tried, he could, under such in which he found it is not chargeMe. 193, 35 AmD 248. proof, be only convicted of a misde-able with larceny in the latter counmeanor in Comal-the amount found ty. Perrin v. Com., 87 Va. 554, 13 SE to have been in his possession in Comal being less than the sum ($20.) necessary to constitute felony under the statute." Roth v. State, 10 Tex. A. 27, 29. Mass.-Com. v. Rubin, 165 Mass. 453, 43 NE 200; Com. v. Hayes, 140 Mass. 366, 5 NE 264; Com. v. Rand, 7 Metc. 475, 41 AmD 455; Com. v. Dewitt, 10 Mass. 154. Miss-Johnson v. State, 47 Miss. 671; Coon v. State, 21 Miss. 246. Mo.-State v. Williams, 147 Mo. 14, 47 SW 891; State v. Hatch, 91 Mo. 568, 4 SW 502; State v. Jackson, 86 Mo. 18; State v. Smith, 66 Mo. 61; State v. Ware, 62 Mo. 597; State v. Harney, 54 Mo. 141. Nebr-Hurlburt v. State, 52 Nebr. 428, 72 NW 471. Nev.-State v. Brown, 8 Nev. 208. See also State v. Pray, 30 Nev. 206, 94 P 218. N. Y.-Mack v. Peo., 82 N. Y. 235; Haskins v. Peo., 16 N. Y. 344; Peo. v. Geyer, 132 App. Div. 790, 117 NYS 662 [rev on other grounds 196 N. Y. 364, 90 NE 48]; Peo. v. Carter, 72 Misc. 631, 132 NYS 250; Peo. v. Gardner, 2 Johns. 477; Paine's Case, 1 City Hall Rec 64. N. C.-State v. Groves, 44 N. C. 191. Okl.-Barclay v. U. S., 11 Okl. 503, 69 P 798; Pearce v. Terr., 11 Okl. 439, 68 P 504; Bivens v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 521, 120 P 1033; Cox v. Terr., 2 Okl. Cr. 668, 104 P 378. Pa. Com. v. Smith, 1 PaLJR 400, 3 PaLJ 34. S. C.-State v. Bryant, 43 S. C. L. 113. Tenn.-State v. Margerum, 9 Baxt. 362. Tex.-Cox v. State, 43 Tex. 101; Rogers v. State, (Cr.) 153 SW 856; Dugat v. State, (Cr.) 148 SW 789; Pearce v. State, 50 Tex. Cr. 507, 98 SW 861; Rose v. State, (Cr.) 65 SW 911; Homer v. State, (Cr.) 65 SW 371; Coleman v. State, (Cr.) 55 SW 836; Steadham v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 43, 48 SW 177; Thurman v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 646, 40 SW 495; Clark v. State, 23 Tex. A. 612, 5 SW 178; McElmurray v. State, 21 Tex. A. 691, 2 SW 892; Shubert v. State, 20 Tex. A. 320; Dixon v. State, 15 Tex. A. 480; Roth v. State, 10 Tex. A. 27; Cameron v. State, 9 Tex. A. 332; Connell v. State, 2 Tex. A. 422. Vt.-State v. Morrill, 68 Vt. 60, 33 A 1070, 54 AmSR 870. Va.-Com. v. Cousin, 2 Leigh (29 Va.) 708. Wash.-State v. Kyle, 14 Wash. 550, 45 P 147. Wis. Powell v. State, 52 Wis. 217, 9 NW 17. Eng.-Reg. v. Newland, 2 Cox C. C. 283; Rex v. Parkin, 1 Moody C. C. 45; 4 Blackstone Comm. p 305; 1 Chitty Cr. L. p 178; 2 East P. C. pp 771, 772; 2 Hale P. C. p 163. [a] Prom one district to another of same county.-The rule as to counties is applied to the bringing of stolen property from one district to another of the same county. Henry v. State, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 331. [b] When only part of property is carried out of county."If defendant stole twenty dollars in Guadalupe county, but the proof showed him in possession of only ten dollars [c] Driving stock from range.— A person may be tried for unlawfully and willfully driving stock from a range, in violation of Pen. Code art 749, in any county into or through which the stock was driven. McElmurray v. State, 21 Tex. A. 691, 2 SW 892; Shubert v. State, 20 Tex. A. 320. V. [d] Theft of horse.-(1) Where one hires a horse in one county, with the fraudulent intent at the time to deprive the owner of it and to appropriate it, and rides into another county and there sells it, the theft is complete in the first county, and he may be there indicted. Lewis State, 48 Tex. Cr. 309, 311, 87 SW 831 (where it was said: "According to the evidence, as we understand it, appellant committed the theft of the property at the very time of hiring the team in Grayson County; otherwise this prosecution could not be maintained. The proof that he attempted to sell the horses in the Indian Territory was merely evidence reflecting and illustrating his intent at the time of the hiring. It was not necessary, as insisted by appellant, that there be a sale of the property in order to establish a conversion. The attempted sale was merely evidence of appellant's intent and purpose at the time of procuring the team"); Givens v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 457, 24 SW 287. (2) But a person may be prosecuted for stealing horse in the county in which the theft occurred, although he took it into another county. Peters v. Com., 9 Ky. Op. 337. (3) Where a horse was taken without an intent to steal, the place where such intent was subsequently formed determines where the crime was committed. Rex v. Carmichael, 22 B. C. 375. a [e] A train porter is triable in the county in which he is found to have in his custody money stolen from a passenger, although he first_took the money in another county. Rogers v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 153 SW 856. [f] Place where intent to steal arose as determining venue.-Where accused had conceived the fraudulent purpose of converting a ring which he had borrowed, and had asserted the title and ownership in himself, and had done everything necessary to constitute a theft thereof while he was in one county, the venue was properly laid in that county in a prosecution for its theft, although accused actually pawned the ring in another country. Piper v. State, 45 Tex. Cr. 121, 119 SW 869. [g An indictment under a statute for stealing and carrying away a slave is not within the rule, but the venue for such offense must be laid,and defendant tried, in the county where the original felonious caption took place. State v. Groves, 44 N. C. 191. [h] The finder of lost property 76. [i] Accused who was not actually engaged in the carrying of the property from one county to another may be prosecuted in the latter county where he was connected with the original larceny, and also with the disposal of the property in the county into which it was brought. Com. v. Dewitt, 10 Mass. 154. 6. Armour Packing Co. v. U. S., 153 Fed. 1, 82 CCA 135, 14 LRANS 400 [aff 209 U. S. 56, 28 SCt 428, 52 L. ed. 681]; State v. Johnson, 38 Árk. 568; State v. Price, 55 Kan. 606, 40 P 1000. See also cases supra note 5. 7. Com. V. Simpson, 9 Metc. (Mass.) 138; State v. Kyle, 14 Wash. 550, 45 P 147. And see other cases supra note 5. [a] Larceny of neat cattle.-The offense of stealing, under a statute providing for such offense, falls within the meaning of such a statute. State v. Kyle, 14 Wash. 550, 45 P 147. 8. Gage v. State, 22 Tex. A. 123, 2 SW 638; Rex v. Fenley, 20 Cox C. C. 252. See also cases infra note 9. 9. Rogers v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 153 SW 856; Nichols v. State, 28 Tex. A. 105, 12 SW 500; Gage v. State, 22 Tex. A. 123, 2 SW 638; Rex v. Fenley, 20 Cox C. C. 252; 1 Hale P. C. pp 507, 508. [a] Stealing money from hand bag.-But the venue of a prosecution for stealing money from a hand bag is in the county where the hand bag is taken with intent to steal its contents, although money is actually discovered and taken from the bag in another county. Lane v. State, (Tex. Cr.) 152 SW 897. 10. Smith v. State, 55 Ala. 59; 1 Hale P. C. p 536. 11. Ballow v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 263, 58 SW 1023. [a] Where a live animal is stolen in one county and is killed there, and carcass taken to second county, the thief cannot be convicted of larceny in the latter county. Grant v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 273, 58 SW 1026; Ballow v. State, 42 Tex. Cr. 261, 58 SW 1022, 42 Tex. Cr. 263, 58 SW 1023. 12. Lucas v. State, 62 Ala. 26. [a] Property not under thief's control.-The thief can be tried only in the county into which the goods are brought when they are under his control at the time. If he sells them and they are brought into the county by another he cannot be tried there, although he may have been with that other. Lucas v. State, 62 Ala. 26. [b] Where a thief sends stolen goods to a confederate in another county, the possession is held to remain in the thief so as to render him triable in such county, although he has never left the place where the goods were stolen. Reg. v. Rogers, L. R. 1 C. C. 136. 13. Walls v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 70, 63 SW 328. 14. See Libel and Slander. [§ 282] 23. Nuisance.15 By the weight of authority, if a nuisance is erected in one county and affects the public in another, the offender may be prosecuted in either county.16 By statute, in some states, prosecutions for nuisances may be brought in the county "whose inhabitants are or have been injured or aggrieved thereby." 17 A statute so declaring is constitutional.18 [283] 24. Perjury. Where inducements to perjury are offered in one county, but the perjury itself and the preparations for it take place in another county, the venue of the crime of subornation of perjury as well as of the perjury is in the latter.10 By statute it is sometimes provided that any person accused of perjury may be tried, convicted, and punished in any district, county, or place where he is apprehended or is in custody.20 [§ 284] 25. Procuring Unlawful Registration as Physician. A person who unlawfully procures his registration as a physician is triable in the county in which the application was filed and the license issued, although accused after filing his application for a license passed an examination in another county.21 [ 285] 26. Publication of Illegal Matter in Newspaper. The statutory offense of publishing illegal matter in a newspaper is committed, and should be prosecuted, in the county where the newspaper is first issued to be delivered or sent by mail or otherwise to subscribers, and not necessarily in the 15. See also supra § 213. 16. State v. Wabash Paper Co., 21 Ind. A. 167, 48 NE 653, 51 NE 949; State v. Herring, 21 Ind. A. 157, 48 NE 598; State v. Smith, 82 Iowa 423, 48 NW 727; Com. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 175 Ky. 267, 194 SW 345; Com. v. Lyons, 1 PaLJR 497, 3 PaLJ 167; Rex v. Burdett, 4 B. & Ald. 95, 6 ECL 404, 106 Reprint 873; Scurry v. Freeman, 2 B. & P. 381, 126 Reprint 1339; Scott v. Brest, 2 T. R. 238, 100 Reprint 129; 2 Hawkins P. C. c 25 § 37. [a] Contrary view.-Where a dam was maintained in one county, which created a nuisance in another, an indictment for creating and maintaining such nuisance should be tried in the county where the dam was erected, that being the county where the offense was committed. In re Eldred, 46 Wis. 530, 1 NW 175. 17. State v. De Wolfe, 67 Nebr. 321, 93 NW 746; American Strawboard Co. v. State, 70 Oh. St. 140, 71 NE 284. 18. American Strawboard Co. V. State, 70 Oh. St. 140, 71 NE 284. 19. State v. Byam, 54 Iowa 409, 6 NW 594; Com. v. Ransdall, 153 Ky. 334, 155 SW 1117; In re Eureka County Bank Habeas Corpus Cases, 35 Nev. 80, 126 P 655, 129 P 308. [a] Knowingly subscribing or swearing to a false report and other acts by an officer, director, proprietor, agent, or clerk of a bank are punishable in the county where the report was subscribed or sworn to, or where the acts were committed. In re Eureka County Bank Habeas Corpus Cases, 35 Nev. 80, 126 P 655, 129 P 308. 20. See Dominion Act 32 & 33 Vict. c 23 § 8; Reg. v. Currie, 31 U. C. Q. B. 582. 21. NW 576. Peo. v. Maczulski, (Mich.) 160 22. State v. Bass, 97 Me. 484, 54 A 1113. 23. See also supra § 214. 24. Cal.-Peo. v. Stakem, 40 Cal. 599. Conn.-State v. Ward, 49 Conn. 429. Kan.-State v. Rider, 46 Kan. 332, 26 P 745. county where the paper is printed, as it may be printed in one place and published in another, nor in another county where it is received by a subscriber through the mail.22 [286] 27. Receiving Stolen Goods.23 In the absence of a statute, the venue of the crime of receiving stolen goods is in the county where they are received, and not in the one where they are stolen,24 nor in the one into which they are subsequently taken.25 In some jurisdictions, however, this rule is changed by statute. Thus a statute sometimes allows a receiver of stolen goods to be prosecuted either in the county where the goods were stolen, or in the one where they were received.26 Other statutes allow a prosecution either in the county where the property was received, or in any county into which it has been carried by the receiver, or in which he has had possession of the same.27 The [287] 28. Refusal to Obey Subpœna. offense of refusing to appear and to be sworn as a witness is committed at the place named in the subpoena, where the testimony was to be given.28 [§ 288] 29. Robbery. Robbery is committed in the county in which the property is taken by violence or putting in fear,20 and an indictment will not lie, as in the case of larceny,30 in the absence of a statute, in another county into or through which the property was carried by accused.31 N. Y.-Wills v. Peo., 3 Park. Cr. 473. [§ 289] 30. Sale of Adulterated Food. Where a statute punishes the sale of adulterated food, the Nev.-State v. Pray, 30 Nev. 206, | same may have been received or con221, 94 P 218 [quot Cyc]. cealed (Polk v. State, supra). See also Moseley v. State, 36 Tex. Cr. 578, 37 SW 736, 38 SW 197. (4) But one who receives property in one county and carries it into another cannot be prosecuted in the latter unless he conceals it there. Polk v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 150, 131 SW 580; Thurman v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. 646, 40 SW 795. (5) The word "conceal" is not to be given the literal construction of hiding, but the handling of property in a manner that would throw the owners off their guard in their search and investigation for the same. Polk v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 150, 131 SW 580. Pa.- -Com. v. O'Neill, 10 Pa. Dist. 227; Com. v. O'Neill, 7 LackLegN 149, 18 LancLRev 85. But see Com. v. Laudermilch, 1 Pa. Dist. 460 (holding that accused could be prosecuted in the county where the property was stolen, although he received it in another county, on the ground that he was an accessary after the fact to the larceny). R. I.-State v. Habib, 18 R. I. 558, Tex.-Thurman v. State, 37 Tex. [a] Delivery to carrier.-One who 25. Peo. v. Disperati, 15 Cal. A. 120, 113 P 889; Campbell v. Peo.. 109 Ill. 565, 50 AmR 621; Roach v. State, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 39. 26. State V. Ward, 49 Conn. 429. 27. Wills v. Peo., 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 473; Polk v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 150, 131 SW 580; Reg. v. Cryer, 7 Cox C. C. 335. [a] In Texas (1) the statute provides that the offense of receiving stolen property may be prosecuted in the county where the theft was committed, or in any other county through or into which the property may have been carried "by the thief," or in any county where it may have been received or "concealed" by the offender. Code Cr. Proc. (1895) art 237. (2) Under this provision a party who receives or conceals stolen property may be prosecuted in the county where the theft was committed (Polk v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 150, 131 SW 580), (3) or in the county where he received the same from the thief who carried it into the county, or in any county where the 28. State v. Scott, 89 N. J. L. 726, 99 A 342; State v. Brewster, 89 N. J. L. 658, 99 A 338; State v. Brewster, 87 N. J. L. 75, 93 A 189. 29. Sweat v. State, 90 Ga. 315, 17 SE 273; Rex v. Thomson, 2 Russell Cr. p 328; 2 Hale P. C. p 163; 1 Hale P. C. pp 507, 508. [a] Where a person is seized in one county and carried into another, and there forced to surrender money, the venue of the robbery is in the county where the money is so obtained. Sweat v. State, 90 Ga. 315, 17 SE 273. [b] Where check reduced to possession.-Where defendant was indicted for robbery of two checks from the prosecuting witness who had been arrested in Kentucky by him and his codefendants and taken into West Virginia to procure the checks, but the checks were not actually delivered to defendant until after prosecuting witness delivered one to a third person on being taken back to Kentucky to be delivered to a codefendant of accused in whose favor it was drawn, if defendant was guilty, the crime was committed in Kentucky, where the check was reduced to actual possession. State v. McAllister, 65 W. Va. 97, 63 SE 758, 131 AmSR 955. 30. See supra § 280. 31. Sweat v. State, 90 Ga. 315, 17 SE 273: Rex v. Thomson, 2 Russell Cr. p 328; 2 Hale P. C. p 163; 1 Hale P. C. pp 507, 508. |