State v. . Best
161 S.E. 535
N.C.
1931
Check Treatment
Stacy, C. J.

Conceding that the recent possession of the stolen property was a circumstance tending tó show the larceny thereof by the defendants (S. v. Hullen, 133 N. C., 656, 45 S. E., 513), or that it raised a presumption of fact (S. v. Anderson, 162 N. C., 571, 77 S. E., 238), or a presumption of law (S. v. Graves, 72 N. C., 482), of such guilt, nevertheless, it is the holding with us that the inference or presumption arising from the recent possession of stolen property, without more, does not extend to the statutory charge (C. S., 4250) of receiving-said property knowing it to have been feloniously stolen or taken. S. v. Adams, 133 N. C., 667, 45 S. E., 553. The two offenses, larceny and receiving, are separate and distinct, and the one is not necessarily included in the other.

Speaking to an instruction similar to the one given in the instant case, Connor, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, in the case last cited, observed: “The charge of his Honor, assuming that the stolen property was found in the possession of the defendant, says to the jury that the law presumes that he is guilty. The question arises, guilty of what ? The law says, of the theft. The jury says he is not guilty of the theft, but is guilty of receiving, etc. Under the general charge of his Honor, the jury may well have applied the language to the second count and found him guilty ‘by presumption of law,’ as was the view of Mr. Saddletrees in the case of Scott’s unfortunate heroine, Effie Deans. Presumptions of law are useful to courts and juries in seeking to ascertain the truth, but the criminal records of all ages and people have shown that great and often irreparable wrongs have been done when they are pressed too far.”

On the record as presented, the defendants are entitled to a new trial. It is so ordered.

New trial.