Wright v. StateWright v. State
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of bur glary, the charging part of the indictment reading as follows:
“Did willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously bréale and enter the storehouse of Hamilton & Rodman, a partnership, where goods, wares, merchandise, and other valuable things were kept for sale with the intent of him, the said Charlie Wright, to willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and burglariously take, steal, and carry away the goods, wares, and merchandise of the said Hamilton and
The appellant was convicted upon the testimony оf one John Eason who was indicted and convicted of the said burglary. The storehouse burglarized was a long distance from the rеsidence of Charlie Wright, and the proof by Eason was to the effect that the burglary was committed about ten o’clock аt night and that they had returned in the direction of Charlie Wright’s and were at another station on the road at midnight. The said John Eason had lived with Charlie Wright for some weeks prior to' the burglary, being employed as a cotton picker, and the goods were found in the possession of a brother of John Eason, who was also a witness in the case, but had no knowledge of the burglary; that is, he was not рresent at the burglary. This witness testified that he procured the goods found at his place from his brother, John Eason, at the residence of Charlie Wright; that the goods were taken by John out of a trunk and delivered to him; that Wright was not present at home on this occasion, and no one was at Wright’s house except a boy of Wright’s and the two Eason brothers. It was found at the store burglarized when еxamined that one of a pair of shoes had been taken and the other left in the store. A similar shoe was found at Wright’s plaсe which the evidence for the defense shows without dispute was brought there by a crippled negro who worked for Wright. John Easоn, the principal witness, upon whose testimony the proof of breaking and entering the storehouse depended, was impеached in every manner known to the law. He was on his own testimony an accomplice. He made statements out of court contrary to his statements in court. He had been convicted of bur
The state in its instruction to the jury followed the indictment, said instruction reading as follows:
“The court instructs the jury for the state that, if you beliеve' from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant with John Eason and others, feloniously broke into the store of Hamilton & Rodman and took, stole, and carried away the goods of said Hamilton & Rod-man as testified to by the witnesses, it is your duty to convict him.”
' It is first assigned for error that the indictment was void because it does not charge the ownership of the property burglarized, it being alleged in the indictment as the property of Hamilton & Rodman, a partnership, without any allegation whаtever to show who the partners were. The law does not recognize a partnership as a legal entity, and, where the ownership is laid in a partnership, the partners should be averred, and the proof should correspond with
It is settled by a long list of authorities that an indictment for burglary should allege ownership of the house burglarized. This averment is essential for the information and protection of the defendant. It was held, in the case of House v. State,
While this will dispose of the рresent indictment, we feel that Ave ought to say that a conviction ought not to stand upon the evidence in this record. The only incriminating evidence of any consequence is that contained in the testimony of John Eason, who was impeached by every method known to the law while the defendant proved his defense by a large number of unimpeached witnesses, and the evidеnce clearly preponderates in his favor. If a new indictment should be found, the evidence for the prosecution shоuld be materially strengthened.
The judgment will be reversed, and the appellant held on his bond to aAvait the action of the next grand jury.
Reversed.