Case Stated by Mr Toney, undated

The case stated by Mr. Toney, pre-sents two questions. I. Whether the [?] who stole the cotton in, and conveyed if [?] the river, to a point. By and above low water mark, are guilty of larceny in Ala; and II, who the parties who receind[?] it at the time point indicated on the river bank, knowing if to have been stolen in [?], are ^legally guilty in Ala of the offence of receiving stolen goods. Knowing than[?] to have been stolen.

I. I apprehend that Howard [?] 13 How. 381, learn no doubt that the morality[?] where the goods were deposited by the thieves, way within the jurisdiction of Ga, that of Ala, the eastern line of the latter State, [?] to the case cited being on the top of the western bank of the Chattahoochee, having[?] the [?] of the river, and the western shaling[?] shore within the jurisdiction of Ga?

But even if that point were within the jurisdiction of Ala, I should [?] by of opinion start at Common Law, the parties who stole the cotton in Ga a thought it into Ala, could not

...is there indicated for larceny; it being a well-understood doctrine of the Common Law, that if the original taking is such whereof the Common Law cannot take cognizance, (as if the goods is stolen at sea, or in Scotland or Ireland [?]), there although the thief shall carry there into an English County, his possession of them there, is not lacking. 2 East P.C. 772; 2 2 Russ. Gr. 175-6: Case of the Adm. Co. 53; People vs Gardner, 2 Johns (NM) 477: People v Schenck, 479: [??]

There may be in Ala, a statute, modifying this doctrine of the Common Law. Their [?] to have loose[?] such an one in respect to slaves, stolen in the States; but whether it extended to other chattels I know not, but having the statute before me. I find such a provision alluded to in the cases of the State [?], 14 Ala. 486; Ham v The State 14 Ala 158; and Murray vs The State, 18 Ala 727. as cited in his Digest.

*last portion is unlcear*

II. The liability to punishment in Ala the receives[?], who know-ing the facts, took the cotton, thought it within the acknowledged limits of Ala, depends, on it seem to me upon the tenor of The Ala Statutes.

The Common Law, if I mistake not would not regard them as punishable, be-cause it can take no cognizance of the act of theft in another State, in which the translation, originated. I take this to have followed a [?], ...[???], the proposition that the receives[?] of a felon who committed the crime outside of the ^cognizance of the Common Law, (e.g. on the high seas), was not amendable to punishment in England (Case of the Adm. 13 Co. 53); and lastly from the [?] that in England they have statutes providing for the case 2 Russ. Gr. 254: 2 East P.C. 772.

There is more than one case in Mass, to the effect that one who knowingly [?] in that State good stolen in another, is guilty, of [?] punishable in Massth, but those cases

seem to have been in pursuance of Statutes similar to those of England. Calling case 1 Mass. 116; Andrews' Case, 2 Mass 14.

In Virginia, the Statute proposes[?] to punish the buying or receiving from another [?], or aiding in concealing any stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. Va code (1860), Ch. 192, & 20. Such language, I conceive, would not be applicable to a case like this. That the goods were stolen in a fact which (in the abscence of some Statute authorizing it), cannot be inquired into, as I understand, it having occurred beyond the cognizance of our laws. If then, the Ala Statute is like own, I think [?]...in maintainable for receiving the cotton. Such a state of things calls findly for legislation[?] interposition, where it has not been already afforded, as it has not been in Va; the Stat. 748 Geo IV, ch. 29, ought to be enacted universally, in these States.