
    THE STATE v. DICK BRADBURN.
    
      Larceny — Robbery—Intent.
    Secrecy is not an indispensable element to the felonious intent necessary to constitute the crimes of larceny or robbery.
    Indictment for Robbery, tried at Fall Term, 1889, of Cataivba County Superior Court, Shipp, presiding.
    There was a verdict of guilty, and from the judgment thereupon the defendant appealed.
    
      The Attorney General, for the State.
    
      Mr. F. L. Glinr, for the defendant.
   Shepherd, J.:

The only question discussed in this Court by the defendant’s counsel, is whether there was sufficient evidence of a felonious intent. The argument is based upon State v. Deal, 64 N. C., 270, and State v. Sowls, Phil., 151, where it is said that secrecy is an indispensable element in larceny, with an intimation that it is also necessary in robbery. These views have been overruled by State v. Powell, 103 N. C., 424, in which the subject is treated at some length.

The defendant and another enticed a boy of twelve years of age into the woods near the highway, knocked him down with a club and took his money. After a dispute over the spoils, the defendant proposed to kill the prosecutor and put him on the railroad track, for the purpose of concealing the crime. If these facts do not constitute robbery, we are at a loss to understand how such an offence can ever be proved.

Affirmed.  