State v. . George Henderson

PeaRSON, O. J. There is no error. I had indulged the hope that in the opinion, State v. Deal, 64 N. C., 270, and in the opinion, State v. Shelton, 65 N. C., 294. The distinction between a mere trespass and a forcible trespass on the 'one side, and simple larceny and robbery on the other, was so plainly set out, as to put an end to the question. So as not only to enable the Judges in the Superior Courts to act upon the distinction, as His Honor, Judge Watts did'in this case, but also to satisfy the attorneys, that if men by stealth or by force with *629 a feloneous intent, took and carried away the personal property of another ; that it was not necessary to trouble this Court with questions turning upon that distinction. In Deal’s case the Court say the prominent feature of a feloneous intent,- is that the act be done in a way showing an intention “to evade the law. Instances are then set out of acts, that show an intention to evade the law. Taking by stealth, taking by force with blacked faces, to this we will now and another instance, snatching money out of a man’s hand, and instantly Tunning off, and endeavoring to get out of the reach of the hands of justice. In Deal’s case we say, “"There is no one feature oí a felonious taking in the face of this transaction.” In this case we say, that every feature in the face of the transaction shows a felonious intent. Contrivance, confederacy, snatching and running off for the manifest purpose of evading the law. No error. This will be certified. Bek Curiam. Judgment affirmed.