
    Commonwealth versus George Dewitt.
    One was indicted for a larceny in this, county. The evidence at the trial was, that the goods were stolen in another county, and brought hither by two persons other than the prisoner, who afterwards came and joined them in the possession and disposal of them. His conviction upon this evidence was held good.
    The defendant, being indicted for a larceny, was tried during this term before Sewall, J., and, being convicted, he moved for a new trial, for the misdirection of the judge.
    The judge reported the evidence that the goods were stolen in Boston, in the county of Suffolk, and brought from thence to this place by two persons, who had been committed on the same charge, but had escaped from prison. The defendant came afterwards by himself from Boston, joined the other two here, and was concerned with them in the possession and disposal of the goods.
    The judge instructed the jury that, if they were satisfied, from the whole of the evidence, that the defendant was concerned in the theft at Boston, and afterwards in the custody and disposal of them here, they might find him guilty of the larceny, although they might not believe him concerned in the transportation of the goods from Boston to this place.
    
      Mellen, for the defendant,
    urged the motion for a new trial, and cited the case of Commonwealth vs. Andrews, 
       and Paul Lord’s case, there stated. All the cases are of a continuance of actual possession, not, as in the case at bar, of a possession merely constructive. The doctrine has already been carried far enough, and ought not to be extended.
    
      * Morton, for the commonwealth.
    The conveyance [*155] was substantially by the defendant; being done by others, who were his accomplices, at his instance, and for his benefit. Qui facit per alium, facit per se.
    
    
      
       1 Mass. Rep. 14.
    
   Sewall, J.,

said that he had entertained some doubts at the trial, and wished to have the question saved. Upon further consideration, those doubts, which had been excited by suggestions arising from technical nicety, were dissipated.

The whole Court agreed that the motion must be overruled and the defendant was sentenced,

ADDITIONAL NOTE.

[A person is guilty of larceny, in Vermont, who brings into that state property feloniously taken in Canada. State vs. Bartlett, 31 Verm. 650.

A foreigner, who, after committing larceny abroad, comes into New York, and brings the stolen property with him, is punishable as for larceny committed in the state. — The People vs. Burke, 11 Wend. 129. — F. H-] 
      
       [This decision goes upon the principle that the possession of the goods stolen by the thief is a larceny in every country into which he carries the goods, because, the legal possession still remaining in the true owner, every moment’s continuance of the trespass and felony amounts, in legal consideration, to a new caption and asportation.— 1 Chitty, Cr. L. 178.—2 East, 771.— Stark. Crim. Pl. 2. — 7 Coke, Bulwer's case. — 2 Hale, 163. — Arch. Crim. PI. 5. — 3 Inst. 113.— See State vs. Merrick, 1 Apple, 398.—Ed.]
     