Definition
"Took and carried away" is a term of art in criminal pleading designating the physical act elements required in an indictment for simple larceny. The phrase describes the two distinct acts that together constitute the taking element of larceny: the initial seizure of another's property (the "taking" or caption) and the subsequent movement of that property away from its original location (the "carrying away" or asportation). At common law, both acts were required to be alleged in the indictment by this specific phrase or its Latin equivalent — cepit et asportavit — to survive a challenge for insufficient pleading.
Common Confusion
"Took and carried away" is sometimes read as a single unified act, but the phrase encodes two legally distinct requirements. The "took" component corresponds to caption — the exercise of dominion over the property. The "carried away" component corresponds to asportation — movement of the property, however slight, from its original position. Both elements were historically required, and the failure to allege either in the indictment could be fatal to the charge. In modern pleading practice, the rigid insistence on this exact phrase has largely dissolved, but the underlying substantive requirements of caption and asportation persist in the elements of larceny.
Core Elements
Caption ("Took"): The defendant must have exercised unauthorized dominion and control over the property of another. Mere touching is insufficient; there must be a complete severance of the owner's possession.
Asportation ("Carried Away"): The property must have been moved from its original location. Common law courts interpreted this requirement generously — even the slightest movement satisfied asportation — but movement there had to be.
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers working with historical indictments, grand jury records, or early criminal pleading treatises will encounter this phrase as a formulaic constant. Its presence signals that the drafter was following common law pleading conventions for larceny, as distinguished from robbery (which required additional allegations of force or fear) or embezzlement (a statutory offense that, by design, dispensed with the caption-and-asportation requirement because the defendant already had lawful possession).
The phrase becomes a research trap in two ways. First, the absence of "took and carried away" in an early indictment may indicate not a pleading defect but the use of an alternative form — "cepit et asportavit" — which is the direct Latin equivalent and carries identical legal weight. Researchers unfamiliar with both forms may misread a document as defective or as charging a different offense. Second, the phrase appears in commentary on larceny long after rigid technical pleading requirements were relaxed by statute in most jurisdictions. Post-reform appearances of the phrase are often descriptive rather than prescriptive, summarizing the substantive elements of the offense rather than prescribing the exact words of the indictment.
The phrase also marks an important boundary in the taxonomy of property crimes. When reviewing historical sources that categorize larceny, robbery, and theft-by-trick, "took and carried away" frequently serves as the distinguishing marker for simple larceny as against offenses where possession transferred by consent (however fraudulently obtained). That boundary matters when tracing how modern consolidated theft statutes absorbed — and in some jurisdictions collapsed — these formerly distinct charges.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary and Bouvier's Law Dictionary are in complete agreement: "took and carried away" are technical words necessary in an indictment for simple larceny. Neither dictionary elaborates on the substantive doctrine beyond that identification, treating the phrase as self-evidently understood by practitioners working in the common law pleading tradition. Bouvier adds the reference to Bacon's Abridgement (Indictment, G 1) and cross-references the Latin form cepit et asportavit, which Black's omits. That cross-reference is genuinely useful — it connects the English phrase to the broader Latin pleading vocabulary and to the treatise tradition that would have governed actual drafting practice.
What both historical sources miss is the doctrinal content beneath the phrase: the centuries of case law debating exactly how much movement satisfies asportation, and the theoretical debates about whether caption without asportation could sustain a larceny conviction. Neither dictionary was attempting a treatise on larceny, so the omission is understandable, but researchers who rely only on these two entries will understand the phrase as a pleading formula without grasping the substantive law it encodes.
Jurisdictional Note
American jurisdictions have almost universally replaced technical pleading requirements with notice pleading standards for criminal indictments, making the exact phrase no longer mandatory. However, the underlying substantive elements — caption and asportation — remain part of the definition of larceny or theft in most states, either by statute or retained common law doctrine. Some modern consolidated theft statutes have eliminated the asportation requirement altogether for certain forms of theft.
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
See Law Mind Encyclopedia: Larceny; Criminal Pleading; Asportation