He had taken secretly another man's property from his possession, for purposes of his own.

Whether he meant to destroy it or hide it or to convert it to his own use made no difference in the offence against the owner or against the law.

On the other hand the defendant's counsel argued that it was a mere matter of mischief; that there was no felonious intent, and no purpose to deprive the owner permanently of the property.

The Chief Justice charged very strongly for the Commonwealth.

The jury very reluctantly brought in a verdict of guilty.