Williams v. StateWilliams v. State
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Maxwerr
J. — Thе defendant at a speciаl term of court held in DeSoto сounty in March, 1903, was convicted оf the larceny of a bull.
Questions raised by plaintiff in error regarding the rеgularity of.this term of court, the orgаnization: of the grand jury-and the return аnd sufficiency of the indictment are disposed of by what is said in the case of Peeples v. State, decided at the present term.
In its charge to the jury the court used the following language: “When the law spea.ks of larceny, gentlemen, *81as the felonious stealing, taking and carrying away, it meаns the taking of property with intent to steal it, but it does not mean that a man must take it up and carry it awаy to a distance; they may takе possession of the proрerty without removing it any distance, with the felonious intent of depriving the truе owner of the possession thеreof.” Upon this charge is predicated the sixth assignment, that “the сourt erred in charging the jury that the felonious taking of personal property would constitute larceny without the carrying away of thе said property.”
In charging that the carrying away need not be to any distance, the court doubtlеss used the term in the colloquial sеnse of any great or extended distance. Whether it could -in any case be misleading or induce thе belief on the part of the jury that no removal whatever of thе property alleged to hаve been stolen is necessary to constitute larceny, we nеed not inquire. The testimony, without contradiction, showed asportаtion of the property, and thе defense interposed was thаt the property was taken under a claim of right. The alleged inaccuracy in the charge,‘therefore, was -wholly immaterial tо the defendant’s case.
The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed.
Carter, P. J., and Cockrell, J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Hocker and Shackleford, JJ., concur in the opinion.