State v. . Bragg

Smith, C. J., after stating the above. We think there was error committed in receiving evidence of the gleanings of the cotton left in the fields, and in the directions given to the jury as to its effect.' The subject matter of the larceny charged is “seed cotton” and “lint cotton,”.terms which, *690 unexplained, seem to designate the article, after it has been picked or taken from the plant, in its condition before and after its undergoing the process of separating the seed from the fibre or lint. In commerce it is sold in both states, and a contract of sale, describing it in either way, would undoubtedly be understood as meaning the gathered and not the ungathered article in the field, unless there are other terms indicating a different intent. There is required a reasonable certainty in the designation of stolen property to enable the defendant to know and meet the specific charge if he can, and to protect himself if he cannot, from a second prosecution for the same offence. State v. Clark, 8 Ired., 226; State v. Horan, Phil., 571. Thus a charge of stealing two barrels of turpentine is not supported by proof of the taking of that quantity from the box cut in the tree to receive and hold the descending sap. State v. Moore, 11 Ired., 70. Th,e error in admitting the evidence is repeated in the instructions to the jury as to its legal sufficiency and effect. Growing or matured cereal crops in the field are not the subject of larceny at common law, because before severance they partake of the nature of the realty and are not within the terms of the definition of the offence. The felonious removal of “growing, standing, or ungath-ered indian corn, wheat, cotton, potatoes and rice,” was made larceny by statute, and to the list of articles have been added terms of more comprehensive import — “ fruit, vegetable or other product,” restricted to such as are “ cultivated for food or market.” Rev. Stat., ch. 34, § 24; Rev. Code, ch. 34, §21; and Bat. Rev., ch. 32, § 20. But an indictment, admitting evidence in its support, uuder the statute, must designate the stolen article, as it is there described, as growing, standing, .or ungathered in the field, and not by the simple name it bears after being gathered. Without these superadded words, the charge must be un *691 derstood as referring to the cotton after it is picked and put to itself. And so an article not specially mentioned in the act, but embraced in the generic word “ product,” must not only be named, but described as .having been “ cultivated for food or market.” State v. Liles, 78 N. C., 496. This is in accordance with the adjudged cases. State v. Turner, 66 N. C., 618; State v. Krider, 78 N. C., 481; State v. Patrick, 79 N. C., 655; State v. House, 65 N. C., 315. For the error in allowing the testimony of the gleaning of the remnant of the crop left in the filed, and the directions given the jury as to its pertinency and sufficiency to'sustain the allegations in the bill, there must' be a new trial, and the superior court should have so adjudged upon the appeal. The judgment of the affirmation is therefore reversed, and this will be certified to the end that further proceedings be had in accordance with this opinion. Error. Venire de novo.