State v. . ChristmasState v. . Christmas
(аfter stating the case.) The motion in arrest of judgment was upon the ground that the bill charged two distinсt offences, to-wit: “ The intent to steal the goods, chattels and money of T. B. Lyman, and also with intеnt to steal the goods, chattels and money of Mrs. Anna W. Lyman.”
The indictment is under section 996 of
The Gode,
and the entering the house
“
with
intent
to commit a felony or other infаmous crime therein,” constitutes the gravamen of the charge. He was not charged with larceny. The offence charged is the felonious entering the dwelling house with
intent
to steal, and if that entry was with the intent to steal anything of value, whether one thing or many things, or from one person or many persons, it constituted but one offence, but one crime, and whether convicted or аcquitted he could not be again put upon trial for the
entry
and
intent.
But at all events the objection сomes too late after verdict.
State
v.
Brown,
2 Winston, 54;
State
v.
Fore,
The exception to the refusal of the Court to еxclude the testimony of Mrs. Lyman was properly overruled by the Court below.
*756 The facts testified tо by her were sufficiently connected with other facts to render them competent as tending to show defendant’s guilt.
The first exception in regard to the charge of his Honor was to the refusal to give the third instruction asked. Assuming that the fact that the defendant was found concealed in the house could only raise a suspicion of some guilty intent, and was not sufficient by itself to warrant a verdict of guilty upon a charge of entering with any specific felonious intent, the facts that money hád been stolen, that the defendant had been frequently in the house, that he had beеn paid money and knew where it was kept, that he had on his person a key that unlocked thе drawer in which 'it was kept, and other facts testified to, constitute some evidence — much mоre than a mere
scintilla
or suspicion — of guilt, and tend to give direction to the intent of the defendant. The able counsel for the defendant, in his earnest argument, pointed to the fact that thе evidence showed that the drawer in which the monkey was kept was often left unlocked, and that servants had access to it, and it might have been stolen by them. That is true; and the single isolatеd fact that money was missing, if standing alone, would constitute no evidence to go to the jury, but when taken in connection with other facts and circumstances, no one of which alone wоuld warrant a verdict of guilty, yet, when taken all together, may amount to full and conclusive prоof. It is the
union
of many facts and circumstances, each one insufficient in itself, that often makеs the strongest proof. Money is stolen — this fact by itself would convict no one. B. knew where the mоney was — this is a circumstance, but would not by itself be sufficient to go to the jury upon a charge аgainst him; he is afterwards seen about the place where the missing money was kept — this may create a suspicion; he conceals himself — another suspicious circumstance; a key is found upon his person that opens a drawer near by where he was conceаled — another very
*757
suspicious circumstance, but by itself too weak to justify a conviction.. Circumstances accumulate, each one by itself of.no great strength, but when united, like the.bundle of twigs in the fable, they become very strong.
State
v.
White,
Counsel relies upon
The State
v.
Wilkerson,
There was no error in refusing, for the reasons stated, the third prayer for instructions, and for the same reasons there was no error in refusing the fourth and sixth instructions asked for.
The seventh prayer was properly refused because it asked the Judge to charge upоn an isolated fact. If the concealment had been the only evidence it might becоme material for us to consider the exception, but there was other evidence.
The eighth prayer was given in the charge of his Honor in language unmistakable and fully as strong as could be properly asked by the defendant.
The tenth prayer for instruction was also properly rejected. There was evidence to goto the jury, and its sufficiency was for them.
State
v.
Powell,
We have examined with care the charge of his Honor as given, and can see no error of which the defendant can complain. Affirmed.