Definition
Stealing is a general, non-technical term for the wrongful taking of another person's property without consent. In legal usage, it does not carry a fixed technical meaning the way LARCENY or EMBEZZLEMENT does. Its precise legal significance depends heavily on context: in a criminal charge or indictment, the word "stealing" does not by itself convey the full charge of felony, and courts have held it insufficient to supply the technical elements required by formal criminal pleading. In slander and defamation cases, however, the term takes its meaning from the subject matter to which it is applied — if the property allegedly stolen is of a kind capable of being the subject of felony, courts will construe "stealing" as implying felonious intent.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The action of the verb to steal; theft. Also, that which is stolen; stolen property.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): The act of taking feloniously the personal property of another without his consent and knowledge; theft; larceny. Also, stolen property.
The gap between common and legal usage here is meaningful in one specific direction. Ordinary speakers use "stealing" as a straightforward synonym for theft or larceny, implying felonious wrongdoing. Legal doctrine resists that equation: the term is technically imprecise and, standing alone in a criminal pleading, does not sustain a felony charge. Researchers reading indictments, pleadings, or slander cases in historical sources must not assume that "stealing" carries the same legal weight as the formal charge of larceny.
Common Confusion
STEALING vs. LARCENY vs. THEFT: These three terms are used interchangeably in everyday speech, but they are not interchangeable in formal legal pleading. Larceny is the technical common-law crime with defined elements; an indictment must charge larceny, not merely "stealing," to support a felony conviction. Theft is a statutory consolidation term adopted in modern penal codes to replace the older common-law categories. Stealing remains the most colloquial of the three and carries the least technical weight in pleadings. In defamation law, "stealing" occupies a distinct intermediate position: its legal effect depends on context rather than on its face meaning.
STEALING vs. EMBEZZLEMENT vs. ROBBERY: Rapalje & Lawrence directs readers from STEALING to all three of these terms, signaling that "stealing" is an umbrella colloquialism that may shade into any of them depending on the manner of taking and the relationship of the parties. Embezzlement involves fraudulent conversion by someone in lawful possession; robbery involves force or intimidation. A source that uses "stealing" without further specification leaves the precise crime legally indeterminate.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working in the Law Mind corpus should treat "stealing" as a flag term rather than a defined charge. Several navigational points:
First, indictment sufficiency: Historical cases frequently turned on whether the language of a charge was technically adequate. "Stealing" in an indictment was contested ground. When reading historical criminal records, an entry that says a defendant was charged with or accused of "stealing" does not confirm that the charge was formally laid as larceny or that felony-level consequences followed.
Second, slander and defamation cases: This is where the term has its most developed and nuanced legal life in the historical corpus. Courts applying the rule that "stealing takes its complexion from the subject-matter" produced a body of case law requiring careful reading. A charge of stealing land (not subject to larceny at common law) carries different legal weight than a charge of stealing money. Researchers tracing defamation claims in 19th-century American cases will encounter this doctrine repeatedly.
Third, statutory displacement: Modern penal codes in most U.S. jurisdictions have replaced larceny, embezzlement, and related common-law offenses with consolidated theft statutes. "Stealing" is sometimes retained as a statutory term (Missouri's criminal code, for example, uses "stealing" as a defined offense). Researchers moving between historical common-law sources and modern statutory sources must check whether the jurisdiction has given "stealing" a formal statutory definition or left it as a colloquialism.
Fourth, cross-referencing: Because Rapalje & Lawrence treats stealing as a see-also entry pointing to three separate crimes, historical legal dictionaries give the term almost no independent doctrinal content. Researchers who stop at the dictionary entry will miss the substantive law, which lives under larceny, embezzlement, and robbery.
Historical Dictionary Support
Both source dictionaries agree on the central point: stealing is not a term of art. Rapalje & Lawrence is characteristically terse, reducing the entry to a cross-reference and a single doctrinal note — that the word does not ex vi termini (by the force of the term itself) convey the charge of felony — supported by 3 Whelock's Criminal Cases 183.
Bouvier is somewhat more expansive and more useful. He observes that stealing "imports nearly the same as larceny" but acknowledges that in common parlance it does not always import a felony — an honest concession that the word straddles legal and lay usage. His slander-law gloss is the most substantive contribution: a person accused in conversation of "stealing" something that could legally be stolen (i.e., personal property subject to larceny) will be treated as having been accused of felonious stealing, which historically sounded in slander per se. Both dictionaries cite the same case for the pleading point, indicating this was settled, if narrow, doctrine.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: the later statutory evolution that would give "stealing" formal definitional content in some jurisdictions, and the complexity of consolidation statutes that absorbed larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses into a single "theft" or "stealing" offense. Researchers relying solely on Bouvier or Rapalje & Lawrence will have a 19th-century common-law picture only.
Jurisdictional Note
Missouri is the most notable American jurisdiction to use "stealing" as the name of a formally defined statutory offense, codified in its criminal code with specific elements and gradations. Most other U.S. jurisdictions use "theft" as the consolidated offense term. In English law, the Theft Act 1968 governs, and "stealing" appears in common usage but "theft" is the statutory term. Researchers must identify jurisdiction before assuming any particular legal weight attaches to the word in a source document.