There must be a breaking and entering as well as the intent to commit a felony or other offense.184

Actual breaking means the making of an opening or mode of entrance into a building by some degree of force, but it does not necessarily contemplate the destruction of any part of the building.185

179 Sikes vs. Com., 17 Ky., 1353;

Brown vs. State, 28 Ark., 126 180 Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec. 371;'

Bergeron vs. State, 53 Neb., 752; Hughes Cr. Law, Sec.

692. 181 4 Blackstone Com., 224. 182 Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 699;

State vs. Hecox, 83 Mo., 531;

4 Blackstone's Com., 225;

1 Hale, P. C, 553; People vs.

Alpin, 86 Mich., 393. 183 Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 692. 184 Underbill's Cr. Ev., Sec. 371;

Greenl. Ev., Sec. 74; Miller vs. State, 77 Ala., 41.

The lifting of the latch and opening the door, or the forcible removal of any thing by which the door is closed, or opening a screen door hung on springs, constitutes a breaking.186

Also the entering of an inner door after entering the house without force with intent to commit a felony in some part of the house is burglary.187

But the entering of an open door of a house without the use of force is not a breaking and entering,188 unless such entering is made burglary by statute, as is the case in Illinois and perhaps in other states.189

So the removal of a window screen fastened to the window by nails, or the removal of a window fastening and lifting up the window, or raising the window and entering with intent to commit some felony or other offense is burglary.190

Descending a chimney by the common law with criminal intent is a breaking.191

Entering the house through the guise of friendship or business with criminal intent, is a burglarious entry.192

The least degree of entrance with any part of the body or with an instrument such as a hook in the hand used in drawing goods out of a window is sufficient.193

185 Metz vs. State, 46 Neb., 547; Lyons vs. People, 68 Ill., 271; State vs. Robertson, 32 Tex., 159; U. S. vs. Bowen,4 Cranch, C. C, 604; Sims vs. State, 136 Ind., 358.

186 Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 694.

187 State vs. Clark, 42 Vt., 629; Rolland vs. Com., 85 Pa. St., 66; Scripture vs. State, 42 N. H., 485.

188 Hamilton vs. State, 11 Tex. App., 116; Green vs. State, 68 Ala., 539; State vs. Rivers, 2 Ohio, D. C, 102; People vs. Barry, 94 Cal., 481.

189 111. Stat., Chap. 38, Sec. 36.

190 State vs. Ward, 43 Com., 489.

191 4 Blackstone Com., 226.

192 Johnson vs. Com., 85 Pa. St., 54;

Dutcher vs. State, 18 Ohio, 317; 193 4 Blackstone Com., 227; State vs. Crawford, 8 N. D., 539;

Pressley vs. State, 111 Ala., 34;

Walker vs. State, 63 Ala., 49;

Miller vs. State, 77 Ala., 44;

3 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 76.