
    The State v. Pleasant Gorman.
    Larceny may be committed of goods obtained from the owner by delivery, if it be done animo furandi. 
      
    
    -Tried before Mr. Justice Johnson, at Columbia, October Term, 1819.
    The prisoner was tried and convicted for stealing a horse, the property of John Tidwell, under the following circumstances: The prisoner was known in the town of Columbia by the name of Pleasant Gorman, and had the care of a wagon and team then employed there, belonging to a Mr. Johnston, of Chester district; and Strother Tidwell, the son of the prosecutor, had also under his care a wagon and team belonging to his father¡ which was employed at the same place. On a Saturday evening Strother Tidwell applied to the prisoner, to lend him a horse to ride up into Fairfield’ district, to procure some fodder for his horses. He obtained the horse, and went away, leaving his own team in the care of a Mr. Gandy. On Sunday, the prisoner applied to Gandy to borrow’ one of Tidwell’s horses, to go a few miles below Granby, as he pretended, to obtain hay for his horses; and Gandy lent him the horse, charged to have been stolen, and he went directly off with him to Barnwell district, where he was before known, and was there recognized by the name of William Turnage, and there sold the horse to a Mr. Seigler. In passing through the street in -x-oii ^Columbia, ho told one witness that he had just swopped for the horse ; Ji-l and he told Seigler that he got him as part of his dividend of his father’s estate, who had lately died in North Carolina.
    One of the witnesses stated that he was employed by Johnston, of whose team the prisoner had the charge, to provide for them, and that the prisoner was under no necessity of troubling himself, on that account.
    Two witnesses, on the part of the prisoner, stated that they had known him from his infancy, until within the last six or eight years, and they had not then heard anything against his reputation ; but since that time they knew nothing of him ; and that his true name was Pleasant Gorman, but that he was sometimes called Turnage. They never heard William added to it before, nor did they know why he was called Turnage.
    
      
      
         See tlie case of the King v. Aickles, Leach, 266 ; see also a case in 1 Haywood’s Rep. 154, State v. Long. R.
      2 McM. 382; 5 Rich. 241.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Johnson, J.

This case has been submitted without argument, and the grounds of the motion being the general one, that the verdict is contrary to law and evidence, without any specification, we are left to conjecture what is predicated.

The points made in the argument of the cause before the jury, in the court below, and those which I presurpe are now relied on, were, that a larceny could in no case be committed where the thing charged to be stolen, came to the possession of the party charged, by delivery of the owner. And admitting it might, that the evidence in this case did not satisfactorily show, that the prisoner’s design, in obtaining possession of the horse, was at the time felonious.

Whatever might have been the old rule on the subject, there can be no question, that at this day a larceny can be committed of goods obtained by delivery froip the 'owner, if it was done animo furandi ; 3 Chitty Crim. Law, 293 ; and the reason and propriety of this rule appear to me too manifest to need illustration. .*’If delivery by the unsuspecting owner, was a sufficient excuse for the thief, however grossly fraudulent or felonious his intention might be, villainy would readily devise stratagems to obtain it, even from the most wary, and would be wholly destructive of that confidence and spirit of accommodation by which society is held together.

Goodwin and A. JP. Butler, for the motion. Stark, Solicitor, contra.

That the prisoner got possession of the horse, with the stealing of which he is charged, with a felonious intention, is determined by the verdict of guilty, and unfortunately for him, I think, it is too plainly manifested by the evidence. He obtained the possession of the horse from Gandy, in whose care he was left, under the strong claim that he had lent one the day preceding to Strother Tidwell, in whose care he was ; pretending that he wanted to ride only a few miles to procure hay for the team, of which he had the charge ; for which there was no necessity ; as they were supplied by one of the witnesses, who was employed by the owner to provide for them. He had but just got the horse into his possession, when he set up a claim to him, by telling one of the witnesses that he had swopped for him. And he carried him directly off to Barnwell, where he immediately disposed of him, telling the purchaser that he received him as a part of his dividend of his father’s estate, who had lately died, and moreover, assumed a diversity of names, well calculated for that pursuit.

1 am, therefore, of the opinion that the motion must be refused.

Colcock, Nott, Gantt and RiohaRdson, JJ., concurred.  