CANAL ZONE v. CLARK.

CANAL ZONE versus CLARK.
No. 23. Submitted January 21, 1907.-Decided April 2, 1907.
VARIANCE. INFORMATION AND VERDICT. Defendant was tried on an information charging larceny only and was
found guilty of receiving stolen property. HELD to be error as the two offenses are separate and distinct, though sufficently similar to justify
two counts in the same information.
LARCENY. RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY. Charge of larceny does not include that of receiving unless there is a count to that effect. That the greater crime includes the lesser is true only when the higher involves the commission of the lower, which is not true in the cases of larceny and receiving.
Appeal by plaintiff from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit; Hon. Lorin C. Collins, Judge.
THE facts appear in the opinion.
W. H. Carrington, for appellant. G. M. Shontz, for the Canal Zone.
H. A. GUDGER, J. The prisoner was tried in the Third Judicial Circuit on an information charging that he did "twenty-eight hundred dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, of the goods and chattels of one Luca Analitz, then and there being found, feloniously steal, take and carry away, etc." There was no count in the bill for "receiving." The court rendered the following verdict:
"The Court finds the said defendant guilty of the crime of receiving and having stolen property in his possession' knowing the same to have been stolen." Motion for a new trial on the ground of variance between the charge in the bill of information and verdict was made and refused, to which the defendants excepted and appealed to this Court.
By statute and common law, larceny is a felony. "Receiving" at common law was a misdemeanor; but by statute, in most States, is made a felony. In the laws of the Canal Zone, "receiving" is a felony but not a larceny. The two

1907.

45