127 P. 1017 | Mont. | 1912
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was convicted, in Valley county, of the larceny of two bay geldings, the property of one Henry Kirns. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The evidence justifies the following conclusions of fact: That in October, 1909, Henry Kirns and the defendant engaged in a so-called horse trade, wherein Kirns traded to the defendant two bay geldings each branded “Cross U” on the right thigh. The horses were not present at the time of the trade, but were ‘ ‘ running on the creek” in the vicinity. Kirns had known them since they were colts. After the trade, Booth said to Kirns: ‘ ‘ When are you coming down and get your two cross U geldings?” Kirns replied: “Why, I will get them in the spring roundup.” At the spring roundup he was unable to find the animals, but about September 1, 1910, he found them in the possession of one Ned Quinn. The horses had been sold to Quinn by the defend
1. The first contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the
2. Again, it is contended that neither property nor possession were shown to have been in Kirns at the time of the
3. There was a question of fact in the ease as to whether Booth traded the two geldings referred to and described by Kims, or two others, which he claimed to own, but that question was settled against the defendant by the verdict.
4. We think there was sufficient evidence that the defendant took the animals from the possession of Kirns. In October, 1909, the latter had stated to the defendant that he would leave them
5. There is evidence in the record that Booth’s ranch, where the crime was committed, is three or four miles north of Poplar, Montana, and we take judicial notice that Poplar is far
6. Finally, it is contended that the court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to answer this question: “Do you know
We find no reversible error in the record. The judgment, and order are affirmed.
Affirmed.