Without detaining the Court and Jury to read other cases, I will simply give your honors a reference to them. I refer to the _King_ vs. _Knight_, cited in 2_d East's Pleas of the Crown_, p. 510, decided by Justices _Gould_ and _Buller_; the case of the _Queen_ vs. _Boden_, 1_st Carrington and Kirwan_, p. 395; and for the purpose of showing that this is the same rule which has been applied by the Courts of the United States, in these very cases of piracy, I need do nothing more than read a few lines from a case cited by the counsel for the prosecution in opening the case of the _United States_ vs. _Tully_, 1_st Gallison's Circuit Court Reports_, 247, where Justices Story and Davis say, that to constitute the offence of piracy, within the Act of 30th April, 1790, by "piratically and feloniously" running away with a vessel, "the act must have been done with the wrongful and fraudulent intent thereby to convert the same to the taker's own use, and to make the same his own property, against the will of the owner. The intent must be _animo furandi_." Now, gentlemen, I think that when you come to consider this case in your jury-box, whatever other difficulties you may have, you will very speedily come to the conclusion that the taking of the Joseph was with no intent of stealing on the part of these prisoners. But, gentlemen, there is another requisite to the crime of robbery, which, I contend, and shall respectfully attempt to show to you, is absent from this case. I mean, it must be by violence, or putting him in fear that the property is taken from the owner, and that the crime of robbery is committed. I beg to refer the Court to the definition of robbery in _1st Blackstone's Commentaries_, p. 242, and _1st Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown_, p. 233, where robbery at common law is defined to be "open and violent _larceny_, the rapina of the civil law, the _felonious_ and _forcible_ taking from the person of another of goods or money to any value by violence, or putting him in fear."