
    *Griffin Thompson v. The Commonwealth.
    Larceny — Indictment—Allegation of Possession. — In Larceny, at Common Law, the Indictment need not charge that the goods were stolen from the possession of the owner, or of any other person. The five days required by Law between the commitment of the Magistrate, and the sitting of the Examining Court, must be either exclusive of both days, or inclusive of one and exclusive of the other; and must not be inclusive of both.
    This was an application for a Writ of Error to a judgment of the Superior Court of Charlotte. The petitioner was indicted for the larceny of a hat, of the goods and chattels of one Robert D. Moore. He was convicted, and then moved in arrest of judgment: 1. Because the Indictment does not aver that the hat stolen was taken from the possession of the owner, or from the possession of any other person. 2. Because there were not five days between the commitment by the Magistrate, and the examination before the Examining Court. (The warrant of commitment was dated on the 6th April; the examination was held on the 11th. So that, exclusive of both days, there were only four intervening days, but including one, and excluding the other, there were five days.)
    
      
      See monographic note on "Larceny” appended to Johnston v. Com., 24 Gratt. 555; monographic note on. “Indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674.
    
   By the Court.

The Writ of Error is refused.  