The object of describing property stolen by its quality and quantity, is that it may appear to the Court *128 to be of value. Tbe object of describing it by its usual name, ownership, &o., is to enable tbe defendant to make bis defence, and to protect himself against a second conviction.

In the case under consideration, tbe substance of tbe charge, is, steabng flour — fifty pounds of flour — from which it is apparent that it was of value; and the exact quantity and value need not be proved. The objection made, is, that it was a u sac 7c of flour;” by which we understand flour in a sack or bag. If the defendant stole the flour, it makes no difference whether it was in a sack, or bag, or box, or lying about loose. It was of value, and its character was not changed. An indictment charged the stealing of “ a parcel of oats held to be sufficient. So another indictment charged the stealing of a “ hogthe proof was a shoat: held to be sufficient. But proof of stealing mutton will not support a charge of stealing a sheep, for the things are different.

In the case under consideration, the proof of stealing a sack of flour, i. e., flour in a sack or bag, sustains the charge of stealing flour, and it was not necessary to prove its exact weight or value. . , ■

There is error. This will be certified, to the end that there may be judgment in the Court below upon the verdict, according to law.

Pee Cubiam. Error.