State v. Carrawan.State v. Carrawan.
We find no error in the record or case on appeal which requires or permits that a new trial be awarded the
*576
defendants or either of them. The refusal of the Court to grant them a sеverance is not reviewable except in case оf gross abuse, and no such abuse appears in the presеnt case.
State v. Oxendine,
It was chiefly urged for error on the part of the defendants that the triаl Court had refused the following prayer for instructions: “In order to suрport an indictment for stealing a raft of logs, it must appear that the logs were rafted and taken, and it will not be sufficient to shоw that the defendants or any of them took some logs floating оn the river, and unrafted.” The case on appeal states that the Court below “declined the prayer as not being applicable to the case and the evidence therеin”; and in this ruling we concur.
It may be a correct position that on an indictment for stealing a raft of timber a defendant should not bе convicted on proof that he had taken certain separate logs, there being no testimony to show that a raft of logs had been stolen or none tending to connect thesе separated logs with the raft. But no such question arises here. Thеre was strong evidence tending to show that a raft of logs belоnging to the Pine Lumber Company had been stolen at a point оn the river known as -“Pitch Kettle Bend,” and at some time between the 3d and 12th of March, 1905 ; that from March 13 to April 1, at different times, five of thе defendants had sold numbers of logs to the agent and buyer of the Elm City Lumbеr Company at a point on the river known as “Oowpen Landing,” somewhere in the neighborhood of Pitch Kettle Bend; that the logs wеre later floated to the ponds of the Elm City Lumber Company at New Bern, and there nurhbers of them were identified as logs which had fоrmed part of the stolen raft.
There was other testimony tending to inculpate these five defendants, and also the sixth defendаnt, Job Holmes. Thus, in the testimony of Lewis Wiggins: “I was at Pitch Kettle *577 last March. Hugh Pаte (defendant) asked me to help him roll some logs. Job Holmеs (sixth defendant) was there with them. I do not know who else was present. When we were rolling in the logs a steamboat came up thе river. All the men there quit work and hid as the steamboat passed, аnd I was standing alone.” It had been proved that the stolen raft had been tied up at Pitch Kettle Bend on account of high water, and when the water subsided part of the raft rested on the bank оf the river and would have to be rolled in the water before the logs could be floated.
It would be incorrect to hold, as the defendants’ prayer would indicate, that this testimony only tended tо show the taking of separated and unrafted logs. Such an interpretation is entirely too restricted. As heretofore stated, there was evidence tending to show that the raft of logs had been stolen, and this testimony, tending as it did to show that' the logs which these dеfendants had sold to the agent of the Elm City Lumber Company had been a part of the stolen raft, bore directly on their guilt of theft of a raft of timber as charged in the bill of indictment.
No Error.