1

The case stated by Mr. Toney, pre-sents two questions. I. Whether the [?] who stole the cotton in, and conveyed if [?] the river, to a point. By and above low water mark, are guilty of larceny in Ala; and II, who the parties who receind[?] it at the time point indicated on the river bank, knowing if to have been stolen in [?], are ^legally guilty in Ala of the offence of receiving stolen goods. Knowing than[?] to have been stolen.

I. I apprehend that Howard [?] 13 How. 381, learn no doubt that the morality[?] where the goods were deposited by the thieves, way within the jurisdiction of Ga, that of Ala, the eastern line of the latter State, [?] to the case cited being on the top of the western bank of the Chattahoochee, having[?] the [?] of the river, and the western shaling[?] shore within the jurisdiction of Ga?

But even if that point were within the jurisdiction of Ala, I should [?] by of opinion start at Common Law, the parties who stole the cotton in Ga a thought it into Ala, could not