People v. Campbell

FINCH, P. J.

The defendant was indicted on two charges of grand theft. He demurred to the indictment on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. The demurrer was overruled, whereupon the defendant entered a plea of guilty of both charges, and

[647]

judgment was entered against him accordingly. This appeal is from the judgment. Both counts of the indictment are in the same form. The first one is as follows:

“The grand jury of the County of Sacramento hereby accuses William Campbell of a felony, to-wit: Grand Theft, in that on or about the-day of January, A. D. 1925, in the County of Sacramento, in the State of California, he the said William Campbell, unlawfully took the property of the California Deciduous Fruit Companies, a corporation, consisting of lawful money of the United States, of the value of $687.50.”

In appellant’s brief it is said: “It requires no argument to sustain the proposition that every unlawful taking of the property of another is not theft.” This may be conceded, but the indictment charges more than an unlawful taking. It charges the commission of “a felony, to-wit: grand theft,” a crime fully defined by section 484 of the Penal Code. Webster defines theft as “the act of stealing.” In

State

v.

Fair,

35 Wash. 127 [102 Am. St. Rep. 897, 76 Pac. 731], it is said: “Larceny is only another name for stealing or theft.” In

People

v.

Donahue,

84 N. Y. 438, it is said: “It is at first questioned whether ‘theft’ is a crime either at common law or under the statutes. . . . The criticism is upon the word. It is claimed not to be the precise equivalent of ‘larceny.’ ... We do not think either suggestion is well founded. Bouvier defines ‘theft’ as ‘a popular term for larceny.’ Blaebstone uses the two words synonymously and as descriptive of one and the same offense.” In