to deceive another. Under some of the statutes it is now an offense to have in one's possession a forged instrument with the intent to pass it as genuine.

The mere offering without any verbal statement is a sufficient assertion that the instrument is genuine.121

The student will understand that in speaking of a forged instrument, we refer to an instrument which on its face has apparent legal validity, and not to every forged instrument, for the uttering of an instrument that has no apparent validity does not constitute the offense we have been discussing.12

ROBBERY.

Robbery is the taking with felonious intent, of the money or goods of another, from his person, or in his presence, against his will, by violence, or by putting him in fear.122

Larceny is an offense against property. Robbery is an offense not only against property, but also against the person.

Robbery is a larceny with aggravating circumstances. These circumstances distinguish the crimes of larceny and robbery from each other.

To constitute the crime of robbery, there must exist all the essential elements of the crime of larceny, and in addition thereto, the larceny must be from the person of another, or in his presence, and it must be accompanied by violence, or a putting in fear.

The crime of larceny has been heretofore discussed, so that it is only necessary to consider those addi

U. S. vs. Long, 30 Fed. Rep., 678.

4 Blk. Comm., 242.

tional circumstances which distinguish a robbery from a larceny. The larceny must be from the person of another or in his presence.

Property in the presence of another is deemed to be under his protection, and a taking of such property is constructively a taking from his person.123

It is difficult to define how far the protection of the person extends, and no general rule can be stated by which it can be determined in all cases what property shall be deemed to be in the presence of the defendant.124

The property taken must be such that it might be the subject of larceny.

To take one's own property by force, or to take the property by force which one believes in good faith is his own, is not robbery, since, as in larceny, the property must belong to another, and must be taken with felonious intent.

123 James vs. State, 53 Ala., 380.

124In State vs. Calhoun, 72 Ia., 432, the court held: "It is not necessary, in order to constitute the crime of robbery, that the property should be actually taken from the person of the victim, or from his immediate presence; and when the victim is bound in one room of the house, and through fear of personal violence, is induced to tell his assailant where his property may be found in another room, and the assailant goes into such room and finds and takes the property, this is taking from the person, within the meaning of the statute.'"

So when B was in his smoke-house, about fifteen paces from his house, defendant came up and said that if B put his head out he would "shoot it off." While B was thus detained a co-defendant entered the house and carried off valuables belonging to B, who did not know for what purpose he was being detained until defendant left. Held, a sufficient taking in the presence of B to constitute a robbery. Clements vs. State, 84 Ga., 660; 8 Am. Cr., 692.

As in larceny, the crime is committed, although the person robbed is not the owner of the property taken, providing it is taken from his possession.

VIOLENCE OR PUTTING IN FEAR.

The taking must be accompanied by violence or a putting in fear. If the taking be without force or putting in fear, it is only larceny.

Thus, where the defendant stealthily picked the pocket of the woman, who, discovering her loss, rushed upon him and struggled with him, the court held the crime was larceny from the person, and not robbery, for there was no attempt to use force or intimidate.1 125

VIOLENCE.

Violence or force is the gist of the offense of robbery.

This violence may be either actual or constructive.

ACTUAL VIOLENCE OR FORCE.

It is somewhat difficult to define what degree of actual violence is requisite to constitute the offense. It is well settled that a sudden snatching unawares from another, without any resistance, or unaccompanied by force or violence, is not robbery. If, how ever, there is a resistance, however slight, the offense is committed. Thus, the snatching of a watch attached by a chain, or the snatching of a diamond pin from the headdress with such force as to remove it with part of the hair, is robbery.12

125 Fanning vs. The State, 66 Ga., 167; 4 Am. Cr., 561. 128 State vs Gorhman, 55 N. H., 152,

Any force that overcomes an actual resistance, though slight, or which prevents such resistance, is sufficient for the purpose of this offense.

127

If actual force is used, it is not necessary that the mind should be moved by fear; accordingly, where one is knocked senseless or is in such a state of insensibility as to be incapable of fear, a taking from his person is robbery.128

The force must be exerted with the intent to commit the robbery, and must be exerted prior to, or at the time of, the taking; thus, if property be taken from another without force, a subsequent struggle to get it back would not make the taking robbery.129 PUTTING IN FEAR.

The offense may be committed where no actual violence is used, by putting the person in fear. “If the taking be attended by such circumstances of terror, such threatening by word or gesture as in common experience are likely to and do create an apprehension of danger and induce a person to part with his property against his will, he is put in fear."130

This fear may consist in the fear of injury to the person, to property, and perhaps of injury to character. The fear of injury may be to one's own person, or to those near to him. The obtaining of property through fear of injury to character is not as a general rule robbery, for "the fear of being arraigned before those tribunals whose function it is to protect and vindicate innocence should not shake a firm

17People vs. McGenty, 24 Hun. (N. Y.), 62.

128 McDaniel vs. State, 8 S. & M. (Miss.), 401.

129 Shinn vs. State, 64 Ind., 13; 3 Am. Cr., 396; Fanning vs. State, 66 Ga., 167; Thomas vs. State, 91 Ala., 34; Hanson vs. State, 43 Ohio St., 376; 5 Am. Cr., 625.

150 Long vs. State, 12 Ga., 293.

mind of conscious rectitude so far from its propriety as to induce the surrender of property, or money, or other valuable thing, to the base accuser." In some States, however, the obtaining of money through the threat to accuse one of sodomy is robbery.

The reasoning of the courts which hold this doctrine "turns on the overwhelming and withering character of the charge and damning infamy so well calculated to unman and subdue the will and alarm the fears of the falsely accused."131

The fear must exist at the time of the taking, for any putting in fear subsequently to retain property taken is not sufficient to constitute the offense.

The taking must be against the will of the person robbed so that, as in larceny, voluntary consent to the taking is a good defense.

The crime of robbery embraces, as we have seen, larceny, so that if the additional circumstances which raise a larceny to a robbery be not proved, the prisoner may be found guilty of larceny.

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS.

The offense of receiving stolen goods is committed where a person receives into his possession, with felonious intent, any stolen property, with knowledge that it has been stolen.

At common law the offense was a misdemeanor only, and the receiver could only be punished after the conviction of the thief, and then only for the misprision of felony.13. The common law offense has been enlarged in England, and in probably all the

181 Brill vs. State, 7 Humph. (Tenn.), 45; Long vs. State, 12 Ga., 293.

12 Bish. Cr. Law, Sec. 1137.

17-1