Lexplug logoLexplug

People v. Ashworth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
222 N.Y.S. 24, 1927 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9345, 220 A.D. 498 (1927)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The unauthorized use of another's property, such as machinery and labor, does not constitute larceny under a statute that requires the physical taking and asportation of tangible personal property.


Facts:

  • Harry Ashworth was the mill superintendent and general manager of A-O Worsted Co., Inc.
  • His brother, Alfred Ashworth, was the vice-president of Midland Wool Combing Co., Inc.
  • Lockport Felt Company contracted with the defendants to spin approximately 20,000 pounds of wool into yarn.
  • The Midland Company, which received the contract, did not have any spinning facilities.
  • Without the knowledge or authorization of A-O Worsted Co.'s officers (other than Harry Ashworth), the defendants used A-O's machinery, facilities, and laborers to perform the spinning work.
  • The Lockport Company paid the Midland Company for the spinning services upon completion.

Procedural Posture:

  • Harry Ashworth, Alfred Ashworth, and three others were indicted for conspiracy and grand larceny in the trial court.
  • The defendants' demurrer to the indictment was overruled by the trial court.
  • After a trial, a jury rendered a general verdict finding the defendants guilty.
  • The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the appellate court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the secret and unauthorized use of a company's machinery, facilities, and labor for personal profit constitute the crime of grand larceny under a statute that criminalizes the taking or appropriation of personal property?


Opinions:

Majority - Taylor, J.

No. The secret and unauthorized use of a company's facilities does not constitute grand larceny because the crime requires the taking and carrying away of a tangible object, not the appropriation of an intangible right. The court reasoned that the words in the larceny statute, such as 'takes,' 'withholds,' and 'appropriates,' connote the physical acquisition of a concrete article. A necessary element of larceny is asportation, which involves an appreciable change in the location of the property. The court found it difficult to conceive how one could 'carry away' the 'use' of facilities that never left the owner's premises. While the definition of personal property is broad, the court held that property subject to larceny must have a 'corporeal existence'—a physical presence detectable by the senses. Intangible rights, such as the 'use' of property, good will, or a leasehold interest, are not subject to larceny under the statute as written.



Analysis:

This decision narrowly interprets the crime of larceny, adhering to the traditional common law requirement that the subject of the theft must be tangible personal property capable of being physically taken and carried away (asportation). It establishes that the misappropriation of an intangible right, such as the unauthorized 'use' of property or services, does not fall under the statutory definition of larceny. This ruling highlights a gap in the criminal code of the era, potentially prompting legislatures to amend theft statutes to explicitly include the 'theft of services' or the unauthorized use of property to address such misconduct.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query People v. Ashworth (1927) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for People v. Ashworth