
    State versus Boyd C. Leavitt & al.
    
    An indictment for malicious mischief will not necessarily be defeated, merely because the acts proved might have supported a charge for larceny.
    Exceptions from the District Court, Hathaway, J. presiding. Indictment under the thirteenth section of the one hundred sixty-second chapter of the Revised Statutes, entitled “ Of malicious mischief,” &c., for wilfully and maliciously destroying certain shop tools, the property of one Dexter. There was evidence tending to show that the defendants, in the night time, broke open the shop, and thew the tools into the river. The defendants’ counsel contended that the acts, if proved, constituted a larceny, and that, therefore, they could not support an indictment for malicious mischief, and requested the Judge so to instruct the jury. That request was denied ; the verdict was for the State; and the defendants excepted.
    The case was submitted by Waterhouse, County Attorney, for the State, and by Knowles, for the defendants, without argument.
   Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—The request to the Judge assumed that, if certain acts would support a charge for larceny, they could not support an indictment for malicious mischief. But there is no such principle of law. This court has recently decided that-acts, which might have supported an indictment for arson, would support a charge for malicious mischief. The instruction requested was properly refused.

Exceptions overruled.  