(after stating the facts as above). The first assignment of the petition is that the court erred in overruling the demurrer of defendant to the evidence offered by the stаte, and it is urged by counsel for defendant that the evidence is wholly insufficient to support the verdict. In the argument of this prop *96 osition it is claimed by defendant that thеre was no competent evidence offered that John F. Reagan was the owner of the mules, and that there was no evidence offered that the mulеs were taken without John F. Reagan’s consent, except the admissions as made by defendant.
If we except a few English cases, the authorities are uniform in maintaining the principle that a conviction should not be had on extrajudicial confessions of the defendant unsupported by corroborating facts and сircumstances. Proof
aliunde
of the
corpus delicti
is required. -While great caution, founded on experience in the administration of the criminal law, should be observed, that a person charged may not be punished for an alleged crime not actually committed, direct and positive, evidence of the
corpus delicti
is not indispensable. Like any other fact, the subject of judicial investigation, it may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
George v. U.
S.,
In George v. United States, supra, this court said:
“In many and perhaps most cаses, to support a conviction, direct proof that the property was feloniously taken from tire person named in the indictment as the owner is necessary. Yet it is not essential in all cases that there should be any direct evidence upon this point. The application of the rule must always depend uрon the facts, of the case. Appellate courts should carefully consider and g.uard against so constructing the law that a proper rule of evidеnce would be perverted into a means of escape from the merited punishment of an offender.”
Under the provisions of our Criminal Code domestic аnimals as named in the act of 1895 (chapter 20, p. 104, art. 1, § 1, Sess. Laws Olda. 1895) are the subject of larceny if taken under such circumstances as would constitute grand larсeny at common law, and the indictment or information need not allege the taking to be against the will of the owner and nonconsent is not necessary to bе averred. It is therefore not necessary to prove. Consent' of the owner would be simply a matter of defense.; the maximum
*97
penalty being' 10 years. However, under the language of this act, the intent to deprive the owner thereof and to convert the same to his (the taker’s) own use must be alleged and proved.
Hughes v. Territory,
*98 Under the 'provisions of section 5509 (Wilson’s Rev. & Ann. St. 1903), in any event, the sufficiency of the evidence is a question for the jury, and not for the court. In this case we bеlieve the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict. The facts and circumstances proved show that the larceny charged was committed, and that John F. Reagan was the owner of the stolen mules. At that time he was near Clinton with a threshing outfit, and the stolen mules were returned to him by the sheriff in the presence of the defendant. It is argued that the testimony of the witness Copely shows that the mules were delivered to R. F. Reagan, and that this is a fatal variance. This objection is not well taken Under the provisions of our Criminal Code the question of ownership in cases of larceny is of much less importance than it was under the common law. Section' 5362 (Wilson’s Rev. & Ann. St. 1903) provides as follows:
“When an offense involves the commission of an attempt to commit a private injury, and is described with sufficient certainty in other respects to identfy the act, an erroneous allegation as to the person injured,' or intended to be injured is not material.”
Martin v. Territory of Okla.,
“It is generally agreed that deliberate confessions of guilt are among the most effectual proofs of the law.” (1 G-reenl. on Ev. par. 215.)
We believe that the evidence is far from insufficient. It is ample to show ownership, nonconsent, felonious taking, and. intent, value, and venue, and supports each allegation of the indict *99 ment — this in addition to the voluntary confessions of the defendant. Therefore we have no hesitancy in saying that the facts and circumstanсes thus shown prove the commission of the crime, and carry conviction of the defendant’s guilt.
The instructions given by the court are eommendably completе, and fully, fairly, and correctly state the law on every feature of the case. No other instructions were requested, and no objection was made to thе instructions as given. Objection is made, and it is assigned as error, that the state, having rested its case on the evidence, immediately requested that the case bе reopened for the purpose of permitting the state to introduce additional testimon}'- as to the ownership of the mules. The court granted this request, and the testimony was offered over the objection of the defendant. This was a matter wholly in the discretion of the trial court, and error cannot be predicated thereon. Having carefully examine’d the entire record, we find no prejudicial error therein. Upon this record a fair and impartial trial was had, and no mistake was made in convicting the defendant.
The judgment of the district court of Ouster county is hereby affirmed, and the court below is directed to proceed; without delay, to carise the judgment and sentence to be carried into execution.