Crocheron v. State

• Decision Date: 02 March 1889
• Citation: 5 So. 649,86 Ala. 64
• Parties: CROCHERON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

5 So. 649

86 Ala. 64

CROCHERON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 2, 1889

Appeal from circuit court, Marengo county; W. E. CLARKE, Judge.

The defendant in this case, Lewis Crocheron, was indicted for the larceny of a mule, the property of Newton Marx, and was convicted under the charge of the court. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions shows, said Marx testified on the part of the state that he employed the defendant on his place during the year 1887, "to perform the ordinary service of a field hand; that the defendant, as such, did plow, feed, and generally use the mule alleged to have been stolen; that one day during said year, before the finding of the indictment defendant took the mule, and went to the field, where he plowed it until nearly sunset, when he took it out of the plow, and went to water it;" and that he did not see the mule again for several days, when he found it in the possession of one Childs, in Marion, to whom the defendant had sold the animal. The defendant asked the court to charge the jury, in writing, "that if they believe the defendant had charge of the mule, and took it out of the plow while in his custody, then he is not guilty of larceny." The court refused to give this charge to the jury, and the defendant thereupon excepted.

John C. Anderson, for appellant.

T N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SOMERVILLE J.

The conviction of the defendant for larceny was proper under the circumstances. The prosecutor had parted only with the custody of the mule, as distinguished from the possession which was still in him as owner, although the defendant had the custody of the animal as mere employé or servant. It has often been decided, and is now settled law, that goods in the bare charge or custody of a servant are legally in the possession of the master, and the servant may be guilty of trespass and larceny by the fraudulent conversion of such goods to his own use. Oxford v. State, 33 Ala. 416; 2 Bish. Crim. Law, (7th Ed.) § 824. It is accordingly said by Lord Hale that it would be larceny if a butler should appropriate his master's plate, of which he had charge; or the shepherd, his master's sheep, in his custody; and so of an apprentice who feloniously embezzles his master's goods. 1 Hale, P C. 506; Rosc. Crim. Ev. (7th Ed.) *639. In all such cases, the custody of a servant is distinguishable from that of a bailee or other person who has a special property in...