Cox v. Com.

• Citation: 9 S.W. 804
• Parties: COX v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Decision Date: 24 November 1888
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

9 S.W. 804

COX v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 24, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Barren county; D. R. CARR, Judge.

James H. Cox was indicted for forcibly breaking into a railroad depot with the intention to steal therefrom, and, having been convicted of the charge, prosecutes this appeal.

C. C. Dickey, for appellant.

P. W. Hardin, for the Commonwealth.

PRYOR, J.

It is apparent from the testimony that the clothing of Hazelip & Magan was stolen by some one. The appellant is indicted for breaking into the railroad depot with the intent to steal therefrom. The facts show that the door of the depot building, or the lock upon it, had been tampered with, and that some one had entered during the night, and opened a box filled with clothing consigned to Hazelip & Magan. Several suits of clothing were found in the possession of the appellant a few days after. One of the suits he proves his mother gave him, and, as to the remaining suits, he seems to have no knowledge whatever. Whether the merchants named lost any clothing or not is not required to be proven. The indictment is for the breaking with the intent to steal. The invoice of the merchants shows that some of their clothing was missing, and the appellant is found with numerous suits corresponding with those in the depot, for which he fails to account. Now, the fact of the breaking and entering by some one, the lid of the box pried off, and this appellant afterwards found with clothes in suits of a similar character, was sufficient proof to convict him. He is not indicted for stealing goods of the firm, but for breaking and entering with the intent to steal. It was not necessary that the goods should have been identified as the property of the merchants. The fact of their similarity with those found in the box, connected with the breaking, authorized the verdict; the appellant failing even to attempt to account for the possession being with him. The wife of the appellant made statements in his presence as to the manner in which possession was obtained that were admitted, and we think properly; and, if improper, they did not prejudice the appellant's defense. The jury was not authorized to convict on a preponderance of the testimony, but was told that they must believe him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed.