What is the test for common law larceny when possession of property is obtained by trick or device?

A long line of authorities in this and other jurisdictions have in the past laid down the limits which define the crime of larceny when possession of property is obtained by a trick or device. On the one hand, we have the cases where the possession of the money or goods said to have been stolen has been parted with, but the owner did not intend to part with the property in them, so that part of the transaction is incomplete, and the parting with [244 N.Y. 360]the possession has been obtained by fraud-that is larceny. Per Lord Coleridge in the case of Queen v. Russett, [1892] 2 Q. B. Div. 312. On the other hand, we have the cases where the owner has parted, not only with possession but with title to property or money-in such cases there can be no common-law larceny.