Where the prisoner, whilst walking in a public street by night with a stranger, with the pretended purpose of guiding him to a livery stable where he might obtain a conveyance to carry him home, suddenly seized the watch of the stranger, which was in his vest watch pocket, with violence enough to break the silk ribbon watch guard, half an inch wide, about his neck, and exclaiming, "Damn you, I will have your watch," fled with it, pursued by the stranger; Held, that this was highway robbery, as distinguished from stealing from the person, notwithstanding the stranger, who was a witness, could not swear that he feared anything at the time, except the loss of his watch; the threatening announcement by the prisoner, at the time, of his intent, accompanied by force sufficient to enable him to accomplish it, aggravating his offence to highway robbery, although surprise greatly aided him.
AMES, C.J.
We all agree that this is a case of robbery; upon the ground, that the felonious taking was effected by force. The passing by the prisoner of his arm through the arm of the prosecutor, and the violence used by him in breaking the ribbon guard about the neck of the prosecutor, accompanied by the prisoner's open announcement at the time, of his determination to take the watch, make, in our judgment, a stronger case of taking by violence than Mason's case, Russ. Ryan, 410, in which the taking was accompanied only by the force necessary, by two or three jerks, to break the steel guard chain about the neck of the prosecutor, without any announcement of purpose, by way of threat, or any laying on of hands. The expressed determination, at the time, of the felonious intent, accompanied by the degree of force requisite to carry the intent into effect, make this a clear case of a taking by open violence, as distinguished from a secret taking, or a mere snatching by surprise from the hand of another. If there be violence sufficient to effect the evil intent, its degree does not seem to be of importance in characterizing the crime; as appears from the case mentioned by Holroyd, J., (1 Lewin, C.C. 300,) in which the judges held, that the running of the prisoner against the person of another, for the purpose of diverting his attention whilst he picked his pocket, was sufficient force to make the taking, robbery, since it was used with that intent. The fact, that surprise aided the force employed by the prisoner to enable him to accomplish his purpose, will not prevent the force employed from aggravating the case to one of robbery.
The prisoner was accordingly sentenced for the crime of highway robbery.