52 So. 417 (Ala. 1910), Sanders v. State

Citation:52 So. 417, 167 Ala. 85
Opinion Judge:MAYFIELD, J.
Party Name:SANDERS v. STATE.
Attorney:Harwood & McKinley, for appellant. Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Judge Panel:DOWDELL, C.J., and ANDERSON and SAYRE, JJ., concur.
Case Date:April 19, 1910
Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Page 417

52 So. 417 (Ala. 1910)

167 Ala. 85




Supreme Court of Alabama

April 19, 1910

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; S. H. Sprott, Judge.

Frank Sanders was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Harwood & McKinley, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.


The defendant was indicted of larceny, and of receiving stolen goods. The property alleged to be stolen, and received as such, consisted of 16 pairs of pants and 3 pairs of shoes, the property of G. A. Horton.

The corpus delicti was not proven, and for this reason the accused should have been acquitted.

The alleged owner of the property testified on his direct examination as follows: "That

Page 418

he knew the defendant. That in January, 1909, before the finding of the indictment, he recovered from the defendant 16 pairs of pants and 3 pairs of shoes. That he (the witness) had never sold any goods like these to the defendant. That the pants were worth from $1 to $2.50 wholesale, and some of them $3, a pair. That the shoes were worth $5 a pair. That these shoes and pants came out of the witness' store at Pleasant Ridge, and, so far as the witness knew, they were obtained from said store without the witness' knowledge or consent. That witness' store is located in Greene county, Ala. That some of said goods had defendant's cost mark on them." This was all of his testimony on direct examination. On his cross-examination he testified to no other fact tending to prove the corpus delicti; but, among other things, testified: That for a number of years prior to the indictment, and at that time, he was engaged in the mercantile business at Pleasant Ridge, Greene county, Ala.; that during this time there were eight persons besides himself who were authorized to sell goods from his store, and that they did sell same; that he could not swear that the goods in question were not sold out of his store in the due course of trade; that witness was absent from his store a great deal of the time; "that witness had quite a large stock of pants in his store, and quite a large stock of shoes also; that he could not swear that he missed these goods, or any of them, out of his stock, and does not know when they went out of his store; that it was not customary for the cost mark to be removed from goods when they were sold; that...

To continue reading