Lowe v. StateLowe v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Carter
Plаintiff in error was at the fall term, 1899, of the Circuit Court of DeSoto county indicted for the lаrceny of a cow, the property of one Durrance. At the Fall term, 1901, a trial was had resulting in a verdict against the defendant. From the sentence imposed he has: taken writ" of error to the present term of this court, and assigns as error the rulings оf- the court upon his demurrer to evidence and motion for a new trial, each of which were overruled, and exceptions noted.
1. The demurrer was interposed at the close of the State’s testimony which was in parol and! almost wholly сircumstantial. It nowhere appears that the State Attorney joined in or argued the dlemurrer. No part' of the testimony was reduced to writing until long after the trial of thе case, and then only by being incorporated in the bill of exceptions. The dеmurrer was general, nothing was reduced to- writing, no specific facts were admitted upon the record, and there was no joinder 'to demurrer. Under these circumstances the court should have declined to consider the idlemurrer, but as the defendant was afterwards permitted to- introduce evidence in his defence no injury rеsulted to Mm from the action of
2. The motion for a new trial was based uрon various grounds questioning the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, the propriety of certain charges given, the refusal to give certаin instructions requested, anq certain rulings upon the admissibility of testimony. The only grounds of the mоtion argued in the briefs filed here are those relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and, therefore, in accordance with the practice prevailing in this court, we shall express no opinion upon the questions presented by those grounds of tne motion which have not been argued. •
The court has carefully considered the evidence as exhibited iiii the bill of еxceptions, and while the writer is of opinion that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict, the other members of the court are of a different opinion, and hold that the Circuit Cоurt ought to have granted the motion for a new trial because of the insufficienсy of the evidence to support the verdict. As a new trial is awarded it is deemed! proper to withhold any comments on the evidence.
Some testimony was givеn at the trial, which the defendant contends proves that Durrance through certain agents consented to and arranged for the taking of his property by defendаnt (if it was taken by him;), and therefore no larceny was committed. The authorities arе abundant and the law unquestioned, that a taking by the voluntary consent of the owner of his authorized servant or agent, even though with a felonious intent, does not constitute larceny. Rut where the criminal design originates with, the accused, and the owner does not in person
This statement of the law is deemed sufficiеnt to guide the court -below upon another trial without the expression of an opinion as to whether the testimony alluded to was sufficient to prove Durrancе’® consent to the taking of his property.
For .the error found, the judgment -of conviction is reversed, and a new trial awarded.