1210 ARTICLE 27

carrying away any child under the age of sixteen years shall be sentenced
to death or to the penitentiary for not more than thirty years, in the
discretion of the Court.

Larceny.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 318. 1912, sec. 285. 1904, sec. 261. 1888, sec. 156. 1715, ch. 26.
1809, ch. 138, sec. 6. 1882, ch. 84. 1933 (Special Sess.), ch. 78, sec. 318.

387. Every person convicted of the crime of larceny to the value of
twenty-five dollars or upwards, or as accessory thereto before the 'fact
shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall restore the money, -goods or
things taken to the owner, or shall pay him the full value thereof, and
be sentenced to the penitentiary for not more than fifteen years, Or to the
House of Correction or Jail for not more than ten years.

Where a statute creates an offense which did not exist at common law or changes the
nature or degree of an existing common law offense, the indictment must conclude
against the form of the statute; contra, if a statute only inflicts a different mode of
punishment for a common law offense. Since act of 1809, ch. 138, repealed the common
law so far as it provided for the punishment of the offense, an indictment merely con-
cluding contra pacem, is sufficient—see sec. 650. State v. Negro Evans, 7 G. & J. 290.
And see State v. Hodges, 55 Md. 137 (decided prior to act, 1882, ch. 84).

A sentence should be framed as near as possible in words of act inflicting the pun-
ishment, but if penalty is in no wise varied by the phraseology of the sentence, no
error is committed; fact that a part of sentence provides that prisoner "serve and labor"
for a certain period in penitentiary, is not error. The restoration of property forms no
part of the sentence proper; if a lighter burden is imposed by a sentence than the law
authorizes, the prisoner cannot secure a reversal on that ground. Isaacs v. State, 23
Md. 414 (decided prior to act, 1882, ch. 84).

It is inaccurate to say that the restoration of property under this section is a part
of the punishment. It is not design of this section to withhold from the real owner
until conviction of thief the common law remedies for restoration of property wrong-
fully taken or for the recovery of value thereof. Action of assumpsit lies to recover
stolen money, and an attachment may issue. Downs v. Baltimore City, 111 Md. 689.

Where there are several counts in indictment charging defendant with more than
one distinct and separate felony, the court may in its discretion either compel an elec-
tion between the counts, or in a clear case quash indictment. Several counts held to
relate to same transaction and indictment held valid. While ordinarily a motion to
quash is addressed to the discretion of the court, its discretion is to be governed by
rules, and if it acts in violation of these rules, its judgment may be reviewed. State v.
McNally, 55 Md. 563 (decided prior to act of 1882, ch. 84).

Larceny defined. The offenses of principal and accessory before the fact in larceny
are distinct, and there cannot be a conviction of one charge upon an allegation of the
other, and an acquittal upon one charge is no bar to a trial upon the other. Suit on a
liability bond guaranteeing against embezzlement or larceny. Canton Bank v. Ameri-
can Bonding Co., 111 Md. 51.

Larceny defined. When a person steals goods, .in another state and brings them into
Maryland, he cannot be indicted here for the crime committed in the other state; but
the act of bringing such stolen goods into this state is a new larceny for which he may
be indicted here. Worthington v. State, 58 Md. 403 (decided July 11, 1882).

Indictment charging that property stolen was worth so many dollars, current money,
whereas this section required the value to be of $5, meaning gold or silver, is valid
in the light of art. 29, sec. 1, et seq.; at most the words objected to were surplusage or
such as should have been excepted to on demurrer. An objection that the record did
not show original indictment, overruled. Suggestion of removal made in time. Gardner
v. State, 25 Md. 150 (decided prior to act, 1882, ch. 84).

An indictment describing the articles stolen as "one hide of the value," etc., is suf-
ficient. State v. Dowell, 3 G. & J. 310.

One who procures another to commit larceny is, if present, guilty as principal, and,
if absent, as accessory. Master and Servant. Stansbury v. Luttrell, 152 Md. 562.

This section does not require one whose money has been taken to wait until after
conviction to recover it. Rasin v. State, 153 Md. 439.

See sec. 155.

As to thieves and pickpockets, see sec. 581, et seq.

As to receiving stolen goods, etc., see sec. 548.

As to indictments for larceny, see sec. 655.