Does anybody have tips on how to extract the correct principles for these questions where they ask you to select the case which would be most applicable as a precedent?

I don't seem to be extracting the correct precedents. What would you extract from the following? (from Barbri mdr)

(a) C v M – Two Brothers see a wealthy neighbor's pedigreed dog on the street. They take the dog home, intending to concel it until the owner offers a reward. Held guilty of larceny
(b) S v S – Two young men saw a motor car on the street with the keys in the ignition lock They drove the car to a neighbouring town with the intention, they said, of visiting the wife of one of them. The car was wrecked on their way back. Conviction of larceny reversed.
(c)P v N – Defendant, a tenant of a city apartment, advertised it for sublease. Will agreed to sublease for 3 month, and on March 12 paid Defendant $550, the total agreed rental. Will was to receive possession on March 20, but possession was never given to him. Held, not guilty of common law larceny.
(d) K v P – From a stablekeeper, defendant hired a horse to go to Sutton and back, saying he would be back at 8pm. He did not return. Investigation showed that Defendant had given a false address, and that he had sold the horse the same day. Conviction of larceny affirmed.

Thanks!

larceny is specific intent crime, i.e., one intended to permanently deprive legal owner from money or chattel

dog case: thieves wanted deprive owner of the dog of his money by "selling " him back his dog

car case: no intent to deprive forever, but for a joy ride, no intent to steal and not to give back

for larceny, since it is specific intent crime. Mens Rea is crucial.
it is element of crime to be proved as existed simultaneously with Actus Reus.
for lease case: took money and did not give possession later
horse case: gave false address at the time of taking horse evidence of intend to steal

thanks for that!

with the horse case - what bearing does the false address have?

This was one of the following questions -
Harris, a heroin addict, broke into a home and took several cameras and watches, which he promptly pawned to obtain cash with which to purchase a 'fix'. Harris was later charged with larceny of the cameras and watches.

The answer for this was that it use the dog case as precedent, rather than the horse case (my original answer).

I thought the pawning of the items showed intent to permanently deprive the owner of the items, similiar to the horse case?

Intent is the issue in all of the examples. As for the false address, that shows the intent that he had for a larceny by false pretenses, or something like that. He intended to keep the horse because if not, he would not have given a false address. In the crimes like larceny, burglary (...with the INTENT to commit a felony within....) make sure that the intent is there, otherwise, no crime. Or at least, not that crime.

make sure you understand dif among larceny, false pretense and larceny by trick

horse case it was rather larceny by trick (rent horse w/o getting the title) gave bunch of crap to get the horse
with dog, boys took the dog w/o talking to the owner (oner did not give them custody-possession of the dog)
likewise, drug addict took thing to sell them to get his fix
if you need help with differential diagnosis among theft crimes, ask for more explanations, PMBR has table with summary of elements for larceny crimes