— The term “paper currency of the United States of America, commonly called greenbacks” designates notes or bills circulating by authority of the general governmеnt as money.. In that class, both United States Treasury notes and those issued for circulation by national banks aré included. — Grant v. State,
By a fair construction of the indictment its averment of ownership in James Bolling is referable'both to the mentioned paper currency and coin. The alleged value of the property being in excess of twenty-five dollars thе offense charged was under the statute grand larceny without regard to the place of its commission.
The indictment was not subject to the demurrer.
It did not appear that the money came into the possession of defendant as the agent of Bolling. The mere fact that he was employed by Bolling in the store and had access at times to the safe where Bolling had deposited the money did not divest Bolling of its possession and consequently wonld not change thе offense if one was committed to embezzlement. — Holbrook v. State,
The fact that the defendant’s testimony in some rеspects did not agree with that of the State’s witness Bolling did not show an attempt at his impeachment on the part of the State and there having been no such attempt hе was not privileged to prove his character for veracity. Funderberg v. State,
We are of thе opinion however that much admitted as evidence for the State and covеred by the exceptions was incompetent. In this category is all that to which objеction was made relating to the defendant’s visits to Montgomery several months after the theft, his having-ten dollars there on one occasion, his fortnightly visits to his mother, his request sent hеr for ten dollars and the fact that more than six months after the theft she had between thirty and forty dollars, most of which defendant had left with her, and likewise what was done and said by or between her and the sheriff. As to the latter the defendant ought not to have been prеjudiced by the conduct of others when he was not present and there was no evidеnce of conspiracy.
The principle which admits for the prosecution еvidence of the recent possession of stolen property by one aсcused of larceny has no application without evidence tending to identify the subject of such possession with
There may be cases involving the theft of money where suspicious conduct of the accused in the acquisition or handling of money not so identified, may be shown as a criminative circumstаnce, but this is not shown to be such a case. If it be true as testified by Bolling that defendant had nо money at the time of the theft it does not follow that the amount he had several mоnths later was not acquired honestly in the intervening time. No reasonable inference to the contrary can be drawn from the facts herein pointed out as objectionable.
. Charge 1 requested by defendant appears to have been cоpied from the opinion rendered in Ex parte Aeree,
Charge 3 asserts a correct proposition and should have been given. — Forney v. State,
The matters pertaining to the drawing оf jurors relied on as grounds for the motion in arrest of judgment do not appear of record and therefore were not available to sustain the motion. — 3 Brick. Dig., § § 311, 312.
For the errors mentioned the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for another trial.