Cooper v. Commonwealth
| Citation | 110 Ky. 123,60 S.W. 938 |
| Parties | COOPER et al. v. COMMONWEALTH. [1] |
| Decision Date | 27 February 1901 |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Marion county.
"To be officially reported."
Grant Cooper and others were convicted of the offense of grand larceny, and they appeal. Reversed.
Geo. A Prentice, for appellants.
Robt. J. Breckinridge, for the Commonwealth.
O'REAR J.
Appellants Grant Cooper, Fred Cooper, Thomas Harris, and Sandy Waggener were convicted in the Union circuit court of the crime of grand larceny, under the following state of facts: The four named had been shucking corn, and were paid $6 for their services. In order to divide the money equally among themselves, they went to the Bank of Uniontown to have $2 of the money changed into smaller denominations. Appellant Sandy Waggener went into the bank and to the cashier's counter handed him the $2, and asked for the change. The cashier handed him two half dollars and a roll of small-sized coin wrapped in paper, saying, "There are twenty nickels." Waggener, without unwrapping the coins, and not knowing what was in the paper, except from the statement of the cashier, rejoined his companions; and the four together went a distance of some four squares, to a more secluded spot, to divide their money. On opening the package they discovered it contained 20 5-dollar gold coins, instead of nickels. Waggener remarked, "Boys, banks don't correct mistakes," and the money was divided among the four and appropriated by them. Upon this evidence the court gave the jury the following instruction: "If you believe from the evidence, to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt that in this county, and prior to the finding of the indictment herein, the defendants, Grant Cooper, Fred Cooper, and Thos. Harris, and Sandy Waggener, sought to have some money changed at the Bank of Uniontown in order to get twenty nickels, or some small change, and that Chas. Kelleners, the assistant cashier of said bank, in making said change delivered by mistake to the defendants twenty five-dollar gold pieces, wrapped in a paper, believing at the time that he was giving them twenty nickels, and that the defendants, sharing in that belief, shortly thereafter opened said paper, and found therein twenty five-dollar gold pieces, and failed to return said gold pieces to said bank --Now, if you further believe from the evidence, to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, that when said defendants unwrapped said paper, and found therein, and in their possession, the said five-dollar gold pieces, they knew that same had been delivered to them by said Kelleners through mistake, and knew or had the means of ascertaining that the bank was the owner of said gold pieces, but thereupon nevertheless feloniously converted the same to their own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...court erred in not giving appellant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer at the close of the whole case, 32 Am. Jur. 896, sec. 10; 52 L.R.A. 136. (3) The trial court erred in not excluding the jury when the alleged confession (State's Exhibit F) was offered in evidence, and in not allo......
-
State v. Smith
...court erred in not giving appellant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer at the close of the whole case. 32 Am. Jur. 896, sec. 10; 52 L.R.A. 136. (3) The trial court erred in excluding the jury when the alleged confession (State's Exhibit F) was offered in evidence, and in not allowing......
-
United States v. Rogers
...29 Hawaii 30. See, also, Bailey v. State, 58 Ala. 414; Fulcher v. State, 1894, 32 Tex.Cr.R. 621, 25 S.W. 625; Cooper v. Commonwealth, 1901, 110 Ky. 123, 60 S.W. 938, 52 L.R.A. 136; Commonwealth v. Hays, 1859, 14 Gray, Mass., 62. The factual situation in Sapp v. State was almost identical to......
- Jackson v. State