
    The Commonwealth v. Cousins.
    June, 1830.
    Larceny — Jurisdiction  — if goods be stolen in one county, and carried into another, the thief may be indicted in either, the offence being complete in both.
    This was a case adjourned to this court from the circuit court of Petersburg.
    Cousins, indicted for horse stealing in that court, and found guilty by the jury, moved the court to set aside the verdict, and order a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict ought not to have been found upon the facts in evidence at the trial; which were, that the prisoner had stolen the horse in the county of Pittsylvania, and af-terwards brought '*the horse, so stolen, to Petersburg, where he was arrested with the horse in his possession. Upon this state of facts, the following questions were adjourned to this court: 1. Whether the circuit court of Petersburg had jurisdiction to try the prisoner? 2. Ought a new trial to be granted?
    
      
      Laiceny — Jurisdiction—Goods Stolen in One County and Carried to Another.--In Strouther’s Case, 92 Va. 791, 22 S. E. Rep. 852. it is said: “It has been a settled principle of the common law, from an early day, in England, tha.t where property is stolen in one county, and the thief has been found, with the stolen property in his possession, in another county, he may be tried in either. This practice prevailed notwithstanding the genera] rule that every prosecution for a criminal cause must be in the county where the crime was committed. The exception to the general rule grew out of a Action of the law, that, where property has been feloniously taken, every act of removal or change of possession by the thiei constituted a new taking and asportation; and, as the right of possession, as well as Ihe right of property, continues in the owner, every such act is a new violation of the owner’s right ofproperty and possession. There is no principle, in respect to larceny, better settled than this, and it has received repeated sanction in this state. Cousins Case. 2 Leiah 709. This rule of the common law, however, was never extended farther than to counties,” In this case (Strouther v. Com.) it was held that, where a person steals property beyond the jurisdiction of Virginia and brings the same into Virginia, he cannot be lawfully convicted of the larceny in Virginia.
      See generally, monographic note on "Larceny” appended to Johnson v. Com., 24 Gratt. 555.
    
   MAY, J.,

delivered the resolution of the court. All the writers on common law, lay it down, that, if goods be stolen in one county, and carried into another, the offender may be indicted in either, because the offence is complete in both. If the original taking, be felonious by the common law, the felon can acquire no colour of right thereby, and every act of possession constitutes a felony, bio principle in respect to larceny seems to be more clearly settled than this; and it has been repeatedly sanctioned in this state.

It is, therefore, to be certified to the circuit court, that it hath jurisdiction of the offence aforesaid; that the motion for a new trial ought to be overruled; and that judgment be pronounced according to the verdict.  