Crouthers v. State

• Decision Date: 26 June 1922
• Docket Number: 94
• Citation: 242 S.W. 815,154 Ark. 372
• Parties: CROUTHERS v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

242 S.W. 815

154 Ark. 372

CROUTHERS v. STATE

No. 94

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 26, 1922

Appeal from Conway Circuit Court; A. B. Priddy, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J Allen Eades and Hays & Ward, for appellant.

J. S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.

OPINION

SMITH J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, alleged to have been committed by stealing two automobile casings, two inner tubes, an automobile headlight, and one automobile wheel, of the value of $ 35, the personal property of A. Z. Mitchell.

It is insisted, for the reversal of the judgment, that the testimony is not sufficient to support the verdict; that there is a variance between the testimony and the allegation of the indictment as to the ownership of the stolen property; that the court erred in permitting defendant to be impeached as a witness when he had not put his good character in issue; and that the court erred in failing to grant a new trial on account of newly discovered testimony.

Mitchell testified that he resided about a mile and a half from Plumerville, in Conway County, and that in June, 1921, he was the owner of a Ford automobile, which he had purchased a short time before from A. B. Payne, a merchant in Plumerville. There were Racine casings on the car at the time of the purchase, but shortly thereafter witness purchased a Goodyear casing for the right front wheel. Witness had put a new inner tube in the Racine casing on the rear right wheel, and had also put a new tube in the Goodyear casing. On the night of June 16, 1921, someone stole the casing and tubes from the right front and rear wheels of the car, and also the right front wheel and the right headlight. Witness Mitchell lived near the road running north from Plumerville, and between eight and nine o'clock on the night of the larceny he saw someone pass his house driving a car without lights, going north. Soon thereafter he saw someone driving a ear without lights going south. Witness went to Plumerville the day after the larceny and reported his loss to Payne, and about two weeks later was notified by Payne that the stolen articles had been found. Witness and Payne drove to where appellant's car was standing, and when they arrived there appellant and two boys had taken the rear casing off of appellant's ear, and were taking off the front casing. There was no inner tube in the rear casing, and witness commented on that fact, whereupon appellant stated that he did not get any inner tubes but had only purchased the casings, and that he had bought new inner tubes and had put them in the casings. Before the inner tube was taken out of the front casing witness told appellant that if the inner tube was his it would have two small patches on it, and after the inner tube was removed from the front casing the patches were found just as witness said they would be, whereupon appellant said, "I reckon maybe that is yours." Witness did not get the wheel, the headlight, nor the inner tube for the rear casing; but he did get the two casings and the inner tube for the front casing, although appellant stated at the time that he had purchased only the casings, and that he had got them from a traveling man. Witness testified that he identified the right front wheel on appellant's car as the one stolen from his car, but appellant refused to surrender it.

Payne testified that when he sold Mitchell the car he made a notation of the serial numbers of the casings, and that about a week after they had been stolen he saw the right rear easing on appellant's car. He spoke to appellant and told him that he had Mitchell's casings, and appellant stated that he had bought them from two boys, but that Mitchell could have them if they were his.

As a witness in his own behalf, appellant testified that one morning between seven and eight o'clock two young men, unknown to him, came to his store and stated that they were broke but that they had two casings and an inner tube for sale. He asked no explanation of the young men as to how they came to have the property but no money, and, although he had never seen them before, he paid them $ 15 for the casings and inner tube. He denied buying or having any other article of the stolen property; and he denied that Mitchell asked him about the other articles; and he denied that he had told Payne that he made the purchase from a traveling man.

Appellant stated that he was at home on the night of the larceny, but admitted he might have driven his car out on the road where Mitchell lived after his washing, but denied that he made that trip on the night the articles were stolen or that he came back by the hotel, and he denied seeing Mr. Nesbit at the hotel that night.

Appellant was corroborated relative to the purchase in June, 1921, of some casings and an inner tube by a negro named Jones and a white man named Tucker.

In rebuttal Nesbit testified that on the night of the larceny he saw appellant between ten and ten-thirty driving a car without lights coming from the direction in which Mitchell lived, and that appellant drove the car under a light near the hotel, where he plainly saw him. He stated that the top of the car was down and that he did not see any of the stolen articles in the car.

We think this testimony is sufficient to sustain the conviction. We have here the possession of recently...