Petitioners in error were convicted of the larceny of a large number of articles of merchandise upon two counts, the first charging that the goods therein described were the property of Rudge & Guenzel Company, a corporation, and the other charging the goods therein desсribed were the property of Miller & Paine, a corporation. Motions to quash the information were overruled. A motion for
Is the еvidence sufficient? The testimony shows that the defendants were, on the day thе theft occurred,, seen in the stores of Miller & Paine and Rudge & Guenzel; that soon after thеy left the store a number of articles of merchandise were missed; that in thе rooms occupied by the defendants at a hotel in the city the stolen property was found in their possession, the price marks and identification tags being removed from a number of articles. The merchandise was fully identified.
The complaint that the court erred in permitting a joinder of the twо larcenies in the same information is not a ground for reversal. The aсts of larceny were closely connected, in time, place аnd manner, and both defendants took part in them. The question of electiоn rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and, unless some prejudice has resulted from the ruling of' the court, it will not be held that this discretion has been abused. Under the facts no prejudice occurred. Korth v. State,
No error is shown as tо the refusal of defendants’ motion for a continuance. The court tried the question upon affidavits. These affidavits are not in the record, and it will be presumed that the evidence warranted the refusal.
The evidence was sufficient to establish the identity of the goods. As to the proof of valuе, there is no better way of showing the market value of any article than thе price at which it and others of its class are being offered and sold on the market. This was shown by a number of witnesses. It is not the cost at the place of manu
Complaint is madе that certain instructions requested were refused, and that'certain of thоse given failed to state material elements of the crime. When the instructions are taken as a AV-hole, each material and essential еlement of the crime is specifically pointed out to the jury. There wаs no error in refusing to give those requested.
It said that instruction No. 14 (evidently meaning instruction No. 15) was erroneous because the forms of verdict submitted only admitted of the finding of both defendants guilty or not guilty. There is no evidence to shoAV thаt the blank forms of verdicts prepared for the jury contained. No pаrticular form of verdict was prepared or requested by the defendаnts, or either of them. There is nothing to show that the jury were prevented from rеturning a separate verdict against each defendant, if they found that оne of them was guilty and the other not guilty, or that such a form was not furnished them. Therе is no merit in this assignment.
The evidence is clear and convincing that the accused committed the crime charged, and they were fairly tried and properly convicted.
Affirmed.