Bradley v. State

• Decision Date: 26 October 1905
• Docket Number: No. 20,650.,20,650.
• Citation: 75 N.E. 873,165 Ind. 397
• Parties: BRADLEY v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

165 Ind. 397

75 N.E. 873

BRADLEY

v.STATE.

No. 20,650.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 26, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; John M. Lewis, Judge.

Edward Bradley was convicted of larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

D. A. Kochenour, for appellant. C. W. Miller, Atty. Gen., C. C. Hadley, W. C. Geake, and L. G. Rothschild, for the State.

JORDAN, J.

Appellant was charged in the lower court with the crime of grand larceny committed at Jackson county, Ind., on February 28, 1905, by then and there feloniously stealing a certain mare, of the value of $50, of the personal goods of one William E. Grigsby. Upon his plea of not guilty he was tried by the court and found guilty of the offense as charged, and over his motion for a new trial, assigning only the statutory grounds, judgment was rendered sentencing him to be fined, disfranchised, and imprisoned in the State Prison under the indeterminate sentence law. From this judgment he appeals to this court, and has assigned that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

Appellant's counsel contend that the evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain the conviction. No evidence was offered by appellant in his own behalf. That which was introduced by the state goes to establish that appellant on February 28, 1905, came to the home of Grigsby, the prosecuting witness, a colored man and a farmer residing near the town of Crothersville, and stated to Grigsby that he wanted to hire a horse. Grigsby was unacquainted with appellant, who appears at that time to have been a resident of Jennings county, Ind. Previous to his coming to see Grigsby he went to see Dr. W. H. Warner, a druggist of Crothersville, and informed him that he was very much in need of a horse to use for a few days or a week in driving about the vicinity of Seymour in said county, for the purpose of collecting bills for a Mr. Russell, a retail groceryman. He stated to the doctor that he could not secure a horse in his own neighborhood, and Dr. Warner referredhim to Grigsby, the owner of the horse in question. Appellant said he would give a mortgage on a buggy which he represented that he owned, and which at the time he said was at Seymour. He claimed to Dr. Warner that the buggy belonged to him, and that he would execute a mortgage thereon to secure the money for the hire of the horse and the return thereof. It appears that before going to see Grigsby he executed a chattel mortgage on the buggy in question to Grigsby to secure a note for $7.50, which represented the hire of the horse for 15 days; that being the amount which it appears Dr. Warner told him Grigsby would charge him for the use of the horse for that length of time. He then went to see Grigsby, taking the mortgage and note with him, and represented to Grigsby that he was in need of a horse to drive around the country to sell certain medicine for the cure of consumption. He presented the note and mortgage in question to Grigsby, which was to secure the money for the hire of the horse, and by this means obtained the possession of the horse from Grigsby to be used by him for a period of 15 days for the purpose which he represented, and within that period he was to return the horse to Grigsby. As a part of arrangement with Grigsby in regard to hiring the horse he agreed to report to Grigsby once every week. He took the horse away with him, made no report whatever, and Grigsby thereafter never saw the horse or heard anything in regard to the animal. There is evidence to show that appellant, upon securing the mare, subsequently disposed of her and absolutely converted her to his own use. She was of the value of $50, and her possession was secured by appellant from her owner, as hereinbefore shown, at Jackson county, Ind. Grigsby testified at the trial that he did not part with her, nor had he any intention of parting with the title to the mare, and had no knowledge whatever as to her whereabouts or what had become of her. The evidence shows that appellant misrepresented the fact that he was the owner of the buggy upon which he placed the mortgage in question. He was not the owner thereof, and his representation that he had been employed by Russell to collect bills was false, and the evidence shows he did not intend to use the horse for that purpose. Dr. Warner upon the trial testified that in the conversation which he had with appellant he was in no manner representing Grigsby, the owner of the mare, nor was he acting as his agent. He appears to have drafted the mortgage and note in controversy, which appellant, as it appears, delivered to Grigsby to secure the hire of the mare. In doing so the doctor testified he was merely accommodating appella...