If the truth were known, except for the larceny, he felt a pang of envy.
Thus, the man convicted of grand larceny a second time would no longer be subject to death.
Is it credible that, in all their languages, the name of the fire-stick should have caused a confusion of thought which ultimately led to the belief that fire was obtained originally by larceny ?
What would be thought of a tribunal which convicted a notorious thief of petty larceny on such evidence as this?
This principle is reaffirmed in the Larceny Act 1861, § 109, and in the Malicious Injuries to Property Act 1861, § 67.