
    Norton against The People.
    On certiorari from a court of special sessions of tie county of Lewis. Norton was convicted in the court below ° e of petit larceny, in stealing certain tubs, which were laid in the complaint to be the property of one Dickenson.
    The receiptP1’of g°ods *a-ken by the sheriff in eseeven a special property, and a larceny cannot be laid of the goods as the property of the receiptor.
    Goods were feloniously taken and removed in one’s absence, by his servant, and under his direction, and afterwards the principal was present, and aided in secreting the goods, Held, that this was not larceny in the principal; who was a mere accessory.
    
      On the trial, it appeared that the tubs had been taken executlon against the defendant below by a deputy she* riff. Dickenson took them into his custody at his* own risk, and deposited them in the barn of a neighbor with his consent, to be forthcoming on the day of sale. The defendant sent a servant, who, by-the defendant’s direction, in his absence, secretly removed them from- this place. Afterwards, the defendant was present rendering his aid in secreting them.
    
      Collins and Parish, for the plaintiff in error.
   Curia.

We are not entirely satisfied that the complaint was sustained in the court below on the merits, even had the property been rightly laid; but clearly it was not so laid. ' The general property was in the defendant below. There was a special property in the sheriff by virtue of the levy; but none whatever in Dickenson, who received and took charge of it for the sheriff. At most, he was a receiptor, who has no right of property. This was held in Dillenbach v. Jerome, (7 Cowen, 294;) and the Commonwealth v. Morse, *(14 Mass. Rep. 217,) cited and recognized in the former case, is in point.

Again; if a larceny was committed, the defendant was not a principal. He was accessary before, and probably after the fact; but that is not the offence charged. The conviction must be reversed.

Conviction reversed.  