Crossland v. State

• Decision Date: 03 February 1906
• Citation: 92 S.W. 776,77 Ark. 544
• Parties: CROSSLAND v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

92 S.W. 776

77 Ark. 544

CROSSLAND v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

February 3, 1906

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; STYLES T ROWE, Judge; reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

E. B Crossland was indicted and convicted of grand larceny of a check made payable to James G. Frizzel. His defense was that it was given to him by Emmet Frizzell, who was the manager of James G. Frizzell's business. The facts of the transaction are detailed in the companion case of Crossland v. State, ante p. 537.

The following are the grounds for new trial referred to in the opinion: "(2) The court erred in not permitting defendant to testify that he had, prior to the time he is alleged to have stolen the check mentioned in the indictment been accustomed to getting money and checks from the prosecuting witness, Emmet Frizzell, and that the said Emmet Frizzell, prior to the alleged larceny, gave him money and checks from time to time, under the same circumstances conditions and considerations as the check he is alleged to have stolen was given. * * * (4) The court erred in refusing to permit the defendant to prove by the witness Emmet Frizzell that he had at different times, prior to the alleged larceny, given to the defendant money, and in refusing to permit defendant to prove by the said Emmet Frizzel that he had from time to time, prior to the alleged larceny, given him like checks as the one the defendant was charged with stealing, and in refusing to permit the defendant to prove by the said Emmet Frizzell that the said money and checks were given under like conditions as defendant claims the check in controversy was given. (5) The court erred in not permitting defendant to prove by the witness Emmett Frizzell that he had a note of defendant's for $ 250, but that this note did not in fact represent an indebtedness from defendant to him, but was for money and checks under like circumstances as defendant claims the check in controversy was given him."

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Ira D. Oglesby, for appellant.

Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee.

Confession of error.

OPINION

WOOD, J.

Appellant was indicted in the Sebastian Circuit Court for the larceny of a bank check valued at $ 15. The indictment was good. The stealing of the check as alleged would constitute grand larceny under sections 1821 to 1824 inclusive, of Kirby's Digest.

The court erred in...