The stealing of property of different persons at the same time, may be charged in the same indictment. Bell v. State, 42 Ind. 335.

The indictment will be good if it contains all the essential facts to constitute larceny, although it may not follow the usual form. King v. State, 44 Ind. 285; Heath v. State, 101 Ind. 512; State v. White, 129 Ind. 153.

An indictment for larceny must allege a felonious taking of the property. Scudder v. State, 62 Ind. 13; Gregg v. State, 64 Ind. 223.

The use of the word "haul," instead of "carry," will not render an indictment bad. Spittorff v. State, 108 Ind. 171.

An indictment which charges the larceny of "goods and chattels," will cover the larceny of bank bills and money. Garfield v. State, 74 Ind. 60.

If property is given to a married woman, the same should be alleged to be her property when the same is stolen. Stevens v. State, 44 Ind. 469.

Clothing furnished by a man to his wife should be alleged to be his property in charging a larceny thereof. State v. Hays, 21 Ind. 288.

A felonious intent must exist at the time of the taking of the property, in order to constitute larceny. Hart v. State, 57 Ind. 102; Keely v. State, 14 Ind. 36; Umphrey v. State, 63 Ind. 223; Starck v. State, 63 Ind. 285.

Where the finder of lost property appropriates the same knowing the owner, he is guilty of larceny, but otherwise if he is ignorant as to the ownership. Bailey v. State, 52 Ind. 462; Wolfington v. State, 53 Ind. 343.

When the taker-up of estray property appropriates the same to his own use, not knowing the owner, there must be a felonious intent at the time of the appropriation, in order to constitute larceny. Starck v. State, 63 Ind. 285.

If employes having control of property feloniously remove the same from its proper place and sell the same, they are guilty of larceny. Marcus v. State, 26 Ind. 101. Obtaining possession of property by fraud with the intent to steal the same constitutes larceny when there is a felonious appropriation. Huber v. State, 57 Ind. 341; Grunson v. State, 89 Ind. 533; March v. State, 117 Ind. 547.

When the owner voluntarily parts with the possession of property with the intention to confer title, there is no larceny, although the transfer was induced by fraud. Perkins v. State, 65 Ind. 317.

The taking and malicious destruction of property does not constitute larceny. Pence v. State, 110 Ind. 95.

Larceny is the wrongful taking of property, without a claim of right, with a felonious intent to deprive the owner thereof and appropriate the same to the use of the taker. Robinson v. State, 113 Ind. 510.

Repentance, or a return of stolen property does not annul the offense, though it may mitigate it. Robinson v. State, 113 Ind. 510.

Public taking of property, effect of as to felonious intent. Feriter v. State, 33 Ind. 283.

A key in the door of a house is the subject of larceny. Haskins v. Tarrence, 5 Blkf. 417.

Bees in the possession of the owner are the subject of larceny. State v. Murphy, 8 Blkf. 498.

There can not be larceny in the taking of a dog. State v. Doe, 79 Ind. 9.

See section 5, act March, 1883; Acts 1883, p. 149; Ell. Supp., section 448, and section 3, act March, 1891. Acts 1891, p. 453.

The taking of several articles at the same time constitutes but one offense. Jackson v. State, 14 Ind. 327; Bell v. State, 42 Ind. 335.

When joint ownership of the property taken is charged, proof of ownership in but one will not sustain the allegation. Widner v. State, 25 Ind. 234; Marcus v. State, 26 Ind. 101.

A wife in the possession of the property of her husbana can not be guilty of larceny of such property. Lamphier v. State, 70 Ind. 317.

Bringing stolen property from another state into this state does not constitute larceny here. Beal v. State, 15 Ind. 378. See Kiser v. Woods, 60 Ind. 538.

If larceny and robbery constitute but one act, the state may elect to prosecute for the larceny. Hickey v. State, 23 Ind. 21.

When an unnecessary description of property is given, the description as alleged must be proven. Morgan v. State, 61 Ind. 447; Lewis v. State, 113 Ind. 59.

The exclusive possession of property shown to have been stolen, shortly after the larceny, raises the presumption that the possessor is the thief, but this presumption may be rebutted. Clackner v. State, 33 Ind. 412; Way v. State, 35 Ind. 409; Turbeville v. State, 42 Ind. 490; Smathers v. State, 46 Ind. 447; Jones v. State, 49 Ind. 549; Howard v. State, 50 Ind. 190; Bailey v. State, 52 Ind. 462.

The presumption arising from stolen goods is one of fact and not of law. Smith v. State, 58 Ind. 340.

Proof of good character alone will not rebut the presumption arising from the possession of stolen property. Wagner v. State, 107 Ind. 71.

If the facts shown constitute embezzlement, there is no larceny. Jones v. State, 59 Ind. 229; State v. Wingo, 89 Ind. 204.

2007. (1934.) Petit larceny.-33. Whoever shall feloniously steal, take and carry, lead, or drive away the personal goods of another, of the value of any sum less than twenty-five dollars, is guilty of petit larceny, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than three years nor less than one year, fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period; or he may be imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, and be fined in any sum not exceeding five hundred dollars, and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period. Upon a second conviction of petit larceny, the person convicted shall suffer the punishment prescribed for those convicted of grand larceny.

Petit larceny is declared by statute to be a felony. Short v. State, 63 Ind. 376.

In charging grand larceny, a former conviction of petit larceny should not be alleged. Good v. State, 61 Ind. 69.

There may be a conviction of petit larceny on a charge of grand larceny. State v. Murphy, 8 Blkf. 498.

[Acts 1893, p. 25. In force May 18, 1893.]

2008. Larceny-Goods from other states.-1. That every person who shall feloniously steal, take and carry, lead or drive away, the personal goods of another, to the value of twenty-five dollars or upwards, in any other state or territory of the United States or foreign country, and shall bring the same into this state, may be convicted and punished, in the same manner as are persons convicted and punished for grand larceny committed in this state; and in every such case such larceny may be charged to have been committed in any county of this state; into or through which such stolen property shall have been brought.

2009. Goods from other states-Petit larceny.-2. Every person who shall feloniously steal, take and carry, lead or drive away the

personal goods of another, of the value of any sum less than twentyfive dollars, in any other state or territory of the United States or foreign country, and shall bring the same into this state, may be convicted and punished in the same manner as are persons convicted and punished for petit larceny committed in this state; and in every such case such larceny may be charged to have been committed in any county in this state into or through which such stolen property shall have been brought.

2010. Buying or concealing goods from other states.-3. Every person who shall buy, receive, conceal or aid in the concealment of anything of value or any personal property that shall have been feloniously stolen, taken by robbers, embezzled or obtained by false pretense in any other state or territory of the United States or foreign country and been brought into this state and knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen, taken by robbers, embezzled or obtained by false pretense in any other state or territory of the United States or foreign country, may be charged, convicted and punished in any county of this state where he or she bought, received, concealed or aided in the concealment of said thing of value or personal property, if the same is of the value of twenty-five dollars and upwards, and upon conviction thereof, shall suffer the punishment prescribed for grand larceny, and if the said thing of value or personal property is worth less than twenty-five dollars, he or she shall suffer the punishment prescribed for petit larceny.

2011. Former conviction.-4. Every person charged with the violation of any of the provisions of this act may plead a former conviction or acquittal for the same offense, or the offense of larceny, robbery, embezzlement or obtaining by false pretense the same property in any other state or territory of the United States or foreign country, and if such plea be admitted or established, it shall be a bar to any further or other proceedings against such person for the same offense.

[1881 S., p. 174. In force September 19, 1881.]

2012. (1935.) Receiving stolen goods, etc.-34. Whoever buys, receives, conceals or aids in the concealment of any thing of value, which has been stolen, taken by robbers, embezzled, or obtained by false pretense, knowing the same to have been stolen, taken by robbers, embezzled, or obtained by false pretense, shall, if the goods are of the value of twenty-five dollars and upwards, upon conviction thereof, suffer the punishment prescribed for grand larceny; and if the goods are worth less than twenty-five dollars, he shall suffer the punishment prescribed for petit larceny.

As to the form and sufficiency of an indictment for receiving stolen goods, see Gandolpho v. State, 33 Ind. 439; Kaufman v. State, 49 Ind. 248.

Counts for larceny and receiving stolen goods may be joined in the same indictment. Keefer v. State, 4 Ind. 246; Maynard v. State, 14 Ind. 427; Kennegar v. State, 120 Ind. 176.

It may be alleged in the indictment that the thief is unknown to the grand jurors, but the allegation must be proven. Foster v. State, 106 Ind. 272.

The admissions of the thief are not admissible against a person charged with receiving the stolen goods. Reilley v. State, 14 Ind. 217.

The goods must have been stolen prior to the receipt thereof by the person accused of receiving the same, but the time and place of the larceny need not be shown. Holford v. State, 2 Blkf. 103; Owen v. State, 52 Ind. 379.

The accused at the time of receiving the goods must know of the larceny thereof, and must receive the same directly or indirectly from the thief. Foster v. State, 106 Ind. 272. The statute of limitations begins to run from the time of the receipt of the goods. Jones v. State, 14 Ind. 346.

2013. (1936.) Secreting a will.-35. Whoever, during the life of a testator or after his death, steals, takes, and carries away a will, codicil, or other testamentary instrument executed by such testator, or, for a fraudulent purpose, destroys or secretes the same, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than fourteen years nor less than two years, fined not exceeding one thousand dollars and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.

2014. (1937.) Stealing public records.-36. Whoever steals, takes, and carries away the whole or any part of any record, record-book, or order-book authorized to be made by any law of this state, or belonging or pertaining to any court of record, justice of the peace, or any state, county, township, or municipal office or officer, or any other public record, document, or proceeding of any court of record, justice of the peace, state, county, township, or municipal office or officer; or any paper, pleading, exhibit, or other writing filed within or by any such court of record, justice of the peace, office or officer, is guilty of felony, without reference to the value of the same, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than fourteen years nor less than six months, fined not exceeding one thousand dollars and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.

2015. (1938.) Officer stealing or destroying records.-37. Whoever, being an officer or his deputy, having the custody of any record, book, document, paper, or proceeding specified in the foregoing section, steals, or fraudulently takes away, secretes, withdraws, or destroys any such record, book, document, paper, or proceeding filed or deposited with him, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not more than fourteen years nor less than two years, fined not exceeding one thousand dollars and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.

2016. (1939.) Altering records.-38. Whoever maliciously, mischievously, or fraudulently alters, defaces, injures, mutilates, or destroys the whole or any part of any record authorized to be made by any law of this state, belonging or pertaining to any court of record, justice of the peace, or any state, county, township, or municipal office or officer; or any other public record so authorized; or any paper, pleading, exhibit, or other writing filed with, in, or by any such court, office, or officer, shall be imprisoned in the state prison not

more than fourteen years nor less than six months, fined not exceeding one thousand dollars and disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.

2017. (1940.) Carrying off fruits, etc.-39. Whoever unlawfully enters upon the lands of another, and severs from the soil any product or fruit growing thereon, the property of another, of the value of ten cents or upwards; or shall sever from any building, or from any gate, fence, or other railing or inclosure, the property of another, or any part thereof, of the like value, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months.

A simple entry by one person upon the lands of another does not constitute a violation of this section. Arbuckle v. State, 32 Ind. 34.

A license granted to enter lands and gather crops can not be revoked so as to make the act criminal. Miller v. State, 39 Ind. 267.

An indictment under this section need not specifically describe the land, but the entry must be alleged to be unlawful. Johnson v. State, 68 Ind. 43; State v. Scott, 68 Ind. 267.

The crops must be growing, or green, in order to make the pulling and carrying of the same criminal. Johnson v. State, 68 Ind. 43; State v. Allisbach, 69 Ind. 50.

2018. (1941.) Trespass.-40. Whoever, being about to enter unlawfully upon the inclosed or uninclosed land of another, shall be forbidden so to do by the owner or occupant, or his agent or servant; or who, being unlawfully upon the inclosed or uninclosed land of another, shall be notified to depart therefrom by the owner or occupant, or his agent or servant; and shall thereafter enter upon such land, or neglect or refuse to depart therefrom,-shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five nor more than fifty dollars.

See section 2220.

It is a violation of this section to enter upon the lands of another after being forbidden not to do so, whether the lands are inclosed or uninclosed. State v. French, 120 Ind. 229; State v. Burns, 123 Ind. 427.

As to notice, see Ryan v. State, 5 App. 396.

There should be some description of the lands in the charge, but it need not be specific or definite. State v. French, 120 Ind. 229; Winlock v. State, 121 Ind. 531. It need not be alleged that the owner forbidding the entry was in the actual possession of the lands. Beggs v. State, 122 Ind. 54; State v. Burns, 123 Ind. 427.

The ownership of the lands may be alleged to be either in the owner or a tenant in possession. State v. Burns, 123 Ind. 427.

The defendant can not prove title in a third person. Ryan v. State, 5 App. 396.

2019. (1942.) Embezzlement of public funds.-41. Whoever being charged, or in any manner intrusted, with the collection, receipt, safekeeping, transfer, or disbursement of any money, funds, securities, bonds, choses in action, or other property belonging to or under the control of the state or of any state officer, or belonging to or under the control of any county, civil or school township, city, or town in this state, converts to his own use, or to the use of any other person or persons, corporation or corporations, in any manner whatever, contrary to law; or uses, by way of investment in any kind of property;