_L._ Sir Edward Coke tells you the reason of it (_3 Inst. p. 107_). For he defineth theft to be, by the common-law, a felonious and fraudulent taking and carrying away, by any man or woman, of the mere personal goods of another, not from the person, nor by night in the house of the owner. From this definition, he argues thus, p. 109: Any kind of corn or grain, growing upon the ground, is a personal chattel, and the executors of the owner shall have them, though they be not severed; but yet no larceny can be committed of them, because they are annexed to the realty; so it is of grass standing on the ground, or of apples, or of any fruit upon the trees, &c.; so it is of a box or chest of charters, no larceny can be committed of them, because the charters concern the realty, and the box or chest though it be of great value, yet shall it be of the same nature the charters are of; _et omne magis dignum trahit ad se minus_. _P._ Is this definition drawn out of any statute, or is it in Bracton or Littleton, or any other writer upon the science of the laws? _L._ No, it is his own: and you may observe by the logic sentences dispersed through his works, that he was a logician sufficient enough to make a definition. _P._ But if his definitions must be the rule of law, what is there that he may not make felony or not felony, at his pleasure? But seeing it is not statute law that he says, it must be very perfect reason, or else no law at all; and to me it seems so far from reason, as I think it ridiculous. But let us examine it. There can, says he, be no larceny of corn, grass, or fruits that are growing, that is to say, they cannot be stolen. But why? Because they concern the realty; that is, because they concern the land. It is true, that the land cannot be stolen, nor the right of a man’s tenure; but corn, and trees, and fruit, though growing, may be cut down, and carried away secretly and feloniously, in contempt and despite of the law. And are they not then stolen? And is there any act which is feloniously committed, that is not more than trespass? Can any man doubt of it, that understands the English tongue? It is true, that if a man pretend a right to the land, and on that pretence take the fruits thereof by way of taking possession of his own, it is no more than a trespass, unless he conceal the taking of them. For in that one case, he but puts the man that was in possession before, to exhibit his complaint, which purpose is not felonious, but lawful; for nothing makes a distinction between felony and not felony, but the purpose. I have heard, that if a man slander another with stealing of a tree standing, there lies no action for it. And that upon this ground: to steal a standing tree is impossible; and that the cause of the impossibility is, that a man’s freehold cannot be stolen; which is a very obvious fallacy. For freehold signifieth, not only the tenement, but also the tenure; and