clearly that the wood taken by the defendant did not come within said definition, but was suitable only for fuel. Hence, if kthe charge of the court is correct, the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence.The definition oftimber contained in the charge is one of the definitions given to that word by Mr. Webster, and this definition was referred to and adopted by our supreme court in the case of Macauleyv. State,43 Tex. 374, wherein it was held that fence rails were not timber within the meaning of the statute under which this conviction was had. Subsequently the legislature declared that the word timber includes rails or other articles manufactured from timber: Pen. Code, art 698. Law lexicographers agree, substantially, with Mr. Webster in his definition of the word: Abbott's Law Diet, tit. Timber; Bouvier's Law Diet., tit. Timber Trees. And it has been held that a contract for the purchase of timber does not pass title to trees which are only useful for fire-wood: Rashv. Drisco,51 Me. 417.Following the authorities cited, we must hold that the word timber, as used in the statute, does not embrace wood which is suitable for no other purpose than fuel, and thatthe charge of the court contains the correct definition of the word. This view of the question is not affected by the statutory provision that the word timber shall include rails or other articles manufactured from timber, because the wood taken was neither timber, nor an article manufactured from timber. If the defendant had cut down the tree, he would have been punishable under the statute, although such tree might not have been a timber tree; but the tree being already felled, and not of that character embraced within the definition of timber, it was not an offense under this statute to carry it away, because the statute restricts the carrying away to timber, and all trees are not timber: Pen. Code, archeap beats by dr dre t. 697. It might be theft to take wood which had been severed from the realty, but to constitute the offense of which defendant had been convicteBeats By Dre Cheap d, the wood taken and carried away must be timber, within the definition given in the charge of the court.Because the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.NOTES. 249. IiarcenyThere must be a Taking.Without asportation there cannot be larceny: Williamtv. State,63 Miss. 58. Proof that defendant was fonnd in possession of an overcoat taken from a dummy, but still fastened to it by a chain through the sleeves, the dummy being on the sidewalk, and tied to the building by a string, as there was no asportation, does not show larceny: People v. Myer,75 Cal. 383. A part owner of property cannot be convicted for theft of it, unless the person from whom he took it was entitled to the exclusive possession of it at the time of the taking. Fairyv. State,18 Tex. App. 314. To convict of theft, it must be shown that defendant had some connection with or complicity in the original taking of the property. Proof that subsequently and without complicity, but with knowledge that the property was stolen, he aided the taker to dispose of it, will not warrant conviction; hence the jury should be instructed that, in order to convict, they must believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant is guilty of the original fraudulent taking, and any subsequent connection, either in good or bad faith, ith the property after the taking, would not constitute theft: Boydv. Slate,24 Tex. App. 570; 5 Am. St. Rep. 908.1250. Distinction between Larceny and False PretensesConsent of Owner.An instruction that if the property taken was obtained °y stealth or fraud, with intent to steal the same, the offense of larceny wasmade oat, is erroneous. Where the owner parts with the property by «sae'. there ia no trespass, and the offense is that of cheating at common law, ot itstatutory offense of false pretenses: Haley v. Sink,49 Ark. 147. Sooeems by false representations induces the owner of money to part with its pas siou for the purpose of bnying medicine for him obtaining the money, iss guilty of 86