2

...is there indicated for larceny; it being a well-understood doctrine of the Common Law, that if the original taking is such whereof the Common Law cannot take cognizance, (as if the goods is stolen at sea, or in Scotland or Ireland [?]), there although the thief shall carry there into an English County, his possession of them there, is not lacking. 2 East P.C. 772; 2 2 Russ. Gr. 175-6: Case of the Adm. Co. 53; People vs Gardner, 2 Johns (NM) 477: People v Schenck, 479: [??]

There may be in Ala, a statute, modifying this doctrine of the Common Law. Their [?] to have loose[?] such an one in respect to slaves, stolen in the States; but whether it extended to other chattels I know not, but having the statute before me. I find such a provision alluded to in the cases of the State [?], 14 Ala. 486; Ham v The State 14 Ala 158; and Murray vs The State, 18 Ala 727. as cited in his Digest.

*last portion is unlcear*