of larceny in feloniously taking ami converting money belonging to the city, it was held, that as the money came lawfully into his hands, he was not guilty of larceny in converting it: Snapp v. Commonwealth,82 Ky. 173. In Texas, the state's witness testified that he got the alleged stolen steer out of its pasture, and put it in another pasture, and was assisted by defendant, and that defendant asked him where the steer came from, and he told him it came from the Big Lake country, and belonged to a Mexican. This was held insufficient to convict the defendant of complicity in the theft, although he afterwards stole the steer, as it was not shown that he knew of the witness's fraudulent intent, and as no subsequent fraudulent participation in the disposition of the steer would constitute theft on his part: Buchananv. State,26 Tex. App. 52. In Regina v. Ashicell,16 Cox C. C. 1, A. was indicted for larceny under the following circumstances: K., intending to lend A. a shilling, handed him a sovereign, believing it to be a shilling. A., when he received the sovereign, believed it to be a shilling, and did not know until subsequently that it was not a shilling. Immediately A. became aware thBeats By Dre Cheap at it was a sovereign, and although he knew that K. had not intended to part with the possession of a sovereign, but only with the possession of a shilling, and although he could easily have returned the sovereign to K., fraudulently appropriated it to his own use; it was held per Lord Coleridge, C. J., Grove and Denman, JJ., Block and Huddleston, BB., Hawkins and Cave, JJ., that the taking was not complete when the sovereign was handed to A., and that there being an animus furandion his part at the time when the taking was completed by his becoming aware of what it was which he had received, he was guilty of larceny at common law. But held per Field, Manisty, Stephen, Smith, Day, and Wills, JJ., that the taking was complete at the time when K. handed the sovereign to A., and therefore, as at that time there was not any animus furandion A.'s part, he was not guilty of larceny at common law. And held, further, by a majority of the court, that A. was not gnilty of larceny as a l»ilee, within 24 & 25 Vict., c. 96, sec. 3.S 255. Finder when not Guilty of Larceny. Lost propertycheap beats by dr dre maybe the subject of theft, but in order to become so, the felonious intent must exist at the time of taking; no subsequent felonious taking will render the previous taking felonious: Warrenv. Slate,17 Tex. App. 207. To justify i conviction of larceny for picking up money dropped by another, a contemporary felonious intent must have existed: Weaverv. State,77 Ala- 26. InVirginia, on trial for the larceny of a pocket-book coutainiug $100 in money and a check for 10.79, the evidence showed that the pocket-book had been lost in a public road. The next day, defendant, a colored man, unable to either read or write, in passing along the road, saw some papers along tbe wayside, and picked up two of them, one of which was the check in question, which was made payable to a third person, and did not have the owner's name thereon. On the same day, defendant showed the check to a neighbor, who was unable to tell him what it was. Some weeks after this, defendant accidentally disclosed his possession of the check, and reluctantly parted with it in payment of a bill, stating that the check had been given him in payment for work done. It was held that the evidence was not sufficient to show that defendant ever had possession of the pocket-book or its contents, except the check; and that, as there was nothing to show that he knew the owner at the time of the linding, and as the owner's name did not appear on the check, > conviction would be set aside as without evidence in its support: Perriav. Commonwealth,87 Va. 554. 256. Larceny by Bank OfficerPrivate Banker.A statutewhich declares that any officer of a banking institution receiving a deposit after knowledge of its insolvency shall be guilty of larceny does not apply to private bankers: Statev. 88