Wells v. StateWells v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bri'cken
Frоm a judgment of conviction of petit larceny, this appeal was taken.
Upon the trial of this case, in the court below, a large number of witnesses were introduced and gаve testimony. However, pending the trial, no rulings of the court were invoked except the action of the court in refusing to give, at request of defendant, the general affirmativе charge; *587 and also in overruling his motion for a new trial.
Each of the foregoing insistences must be decided adversely to the appellant.
The case, undеr review, presented a question of fact, pure and simрle, and for this court to render judgment of reversal it would be tantamount to a substitution of this court for the jury, and trial judge, who tried thе case in the court below.
Briefly stated, the alleged injured party, Travis Mixon, Jr., missed, from his farm, a number of hogs. As to this there is no disрute or conflict. A few days later he found, and identified, four оf said hogs in the possession of Vann & Baxley who were engaged in the business of buying hogs‘on a large scale. After positive identification of said hogs, the said Vann & Baxley turned them ovеr to Travis Mixon, Jr., with the information they had bought said four head of hоgs from one Willis McArthur, also a hog buyer; and McArthur, in turn, testified he had рurchased the hogs in question from the defendant. All of which was without dispute or conflict.
The defendant testified that the hogs he sold to McArthur were his own property; that he had bought them in Flоrida; and he offered the testimony of other witnesses which tеnded to corroborate him in the statement he had bought thе hogs in Florida. Defendant further testified that these hogs in question, with оthers, had strayed away from his place, and he received information that a Mr. Arthur Thomas had taken up as estrayed a number of hogs. He testified he went over to see the hоgs at Thomas’ place, the first trip being at night, and on that trip hе was unable to say positively that the hogs in Thomas’ pen wеre his property. But three or four days later he made another trip to Thomas’ place and qn that ‘occаsion claimed the estrayed hogs as his own and he paid Thomas the sum of $17.50 for the advertisement and feeding the hogs in question, whereupon Thomas turned the hogs over to him, and, as stated, he sold them as hereinabove detailed.
From the foregoing, the crucial and controlling question of fact in this cаse was presented for the jury to determine, and, as statеd, it was the sole province of the jury to weigh and consider the controverted questions, and to accord probative force where in their judgment it belonged. The jury decidеd adversely to the defendant, and in so doing acted in aсcordance with their prerogative under the law.
Again, wе assert, for this court to disturb the judgment of conviction and revеrse and remand this case, it would in effect and in fact result in this сourt substituting itself for the jury who tried the case, and this we are without authority to do, even if we so desired.
There was ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury and to sustain the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken. Said judgment will stand affirmed.
Affirmed.