#### THE STATE v. JOHN HARRIS.

An indictment for stealing “fifty pounds of flour, of the value of sixpence,” is good; and is sustained by proof that the party charged stole a scialc of flour, although there was no proof of its weight, or of its value further than that the defendant had said that he gave five and a half dollars for it.

Larceny, tried before.Toargee, ./., at Fall Term 1869, of Chatham Court.

The indictment described the article taken, as u Fifty pounds of flour, of the value of sixpence.” A special verdict was-found : viz:

1. That the defendant had stolen, &c., “ one sack of flour the property of,” &c.

2. That there was no evidence of its weight.

3. That the only evidence of its value, was an allegation of defendant given in evidence, that he paid $5 50 for it.

Thereupon, His Honor ordered a verdict of Not G-uilty to he entered, and gave Judgment accordingly ; and the Solicitor for the State appealed.

Attorney-General, for the State.

No Counsel, contra.

Reade, J.

The object of describing property stolen by its quality and quantity, is that it may appear to the Court *128to be of value. Tbe object of describing it by its usual name, ownership, &o., is to enable tbe defendant to make bis defence, and to protect himself against a second conviction.

In the case under consideration, tbe substance of tbe charge, is, steabng flour — fifty pounds of flour — from which it is apparent that it was of value; and the exact quantity and value need not be proved. The objection made, is, that it was a u sac 7c of flour;” by which we understand flour in a sack or bag. If the defendant stole the flour, it makes no difference whether it was in a sack, or bag, or box, or lying about loose. It was of value, and its character was not changed. An indictment charged the stealing of “ a parcel of oats held to be sufficient. So another indictment charged the stealing of a “ hogthe proof was a shoat: held to be sufficient. But proof of stealing mutton will not support a charge of stealing a sheep, for the things are different.

In the case under consideration, the proof of stealing a sack of flour, i. e., flour in a sack or bag, sustains the charge of stealing flour, and it was not necessary to prove its exact weight or value. . , ■

There is error. This will be certified, to the end that there may be judgment in the Court below upon the verdict, according to law.

Pee Cubiam. Error.