¶1 There must be an asportation of the article alleged to be stolen, to complete the crime of larceny. The question as to what constitutes a sufficient asportation has given rise to many nice distinctions in the Courts of England, and the rules *397 there established have been generally observed by the Courts of this country. Roscoe 570, 2 Bishop Crim. Law, 804.
¶2 The least removal of an article, from the actual or constructive possession of the owner, so as to be under the control of the felon, will be a sufficient asportation. State v. Jackson, 65 N. C. 305. Where a parcel was not removed, its position only ■being altered on the spot where it lay, the Judges in England held that there was not a sufficient asportation. Cherry's case, 2 East. P. C. 556.
¶3 In the case before us, the barrel of turpentine was turned from its head over oh its side by the defendant with a felonious intent, but there was no other removal from the spot where it had.been placed by the owners. We concur in the opinion of his Honor, that there was not a sufficient asportation to constitute the crime of larceny. The defendant by his act used a false pretence, and if he, deceived the owner of the turpentine, and by such deception received from the owner anything of value, he may be liable to indictment under our statute. Rev. Code, ch. 34, sec. 67.
¶4 There is no error. Let this opinion be certified.
¶5 Pee Ctjeiam. Judgment affirmed.