Curington v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1920 |
| Parties | CURINGTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; M. F. Horne, Judge.
Jeff Curington was convicted of the larceny of hogs of the value of more than $20, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Hogs are 'property,' subject of larceny within the statutory description. Hogs are within the description of 'property,' which is made the subject of larceny under section 3288, Gen. St. 1906 (Florida Compiled Laws 1914), and the larceny of hogs of the value of $20 or more is punishable under this statute. [Ed. Note.--For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Secons Series Property.]
'Chattels' embraces all kinds of property less than a freehold. The term 'chattels' embraces generally every species of property, movable or immovable, which is less than a freehold. [Ed. Note.--For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Chattel.]
'Personal chattels' defined. 'Personal chattels' are things movable which may be carried about by the owner, such as animals, household stuff, money, jewels, corn, garments, and everything else that can be put in motion and transferred from one place to another. [Ed. Note.--For other definitions see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Chattels Personal.]
Intent to be submitted to the jury without intimation by court as to effect of presumptions. Upon a charge of larceny, where there is conflict in the evidence as to the intent with which the property was taken, or it is of such a character as to legitimately authorize an inference of a felonious purpose then the matter should be submitted to the jury without any intimation from the trial court as to the force of presumptions of fact arising from any protion of the testimony.
J. B. Hodges, of Lake City, for plaintiff in error.
Van C. Sweringen, Atty. Gen., and D. Stuart Gillis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiff in error, referred to herein as defendant, was indicted, tried, and convicted upon a charge of the larceny of hogs of the value of more than $20. After judgment imposing sentence upon him he took writ of error from this court.
The basis of the first contion of defendant is rulings of the trial court holding inadmissible evidence of a witness for defendant to the effect that defendant's son, Letha Curington, had engaged the witness testufying to search the woods for his hogs, which, it was claimed, had disappeared. This evidence was objected to upon the ground that it was hearsay and was a mere attempt to bolster up the defense by something alleged to have been done by the son of defendant. There was no error in excluding this evidence. What defendant's son may have done, or the fact that hogs of his may have disappeared, could have no material relevancy to the question of defendant's culpability or innocence upon the trial of a charge against defendant for the theft of hogs of the person alleged in the indictment to be the owner. If the loss of hogs by defendant's son is relevant to the issue involved, its relevancy is not made to appear by the record.
It is urged here that there was error in the order overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment. As we understand the argument made under this assignment, it is that there is no statute in this state defining the offense of grand larceny of hogs and prescribing a punishment for such offense, and that therefore the sentence imposed upon defendant for the larceny of hogs of the value of more than $20 was without authority. The theory is that since sections 3302-3303, General Statutes 1906, Florida Compiled Laws prescribe a penalty for the larceny of hogs of less value than $20 only, there is no penalty for the higher offense. But this theory is not tenable. By section 3288, General Statutes 1906, Florida Compiled Laws, a penalty is prescribed for larceny 'by stealing of the property of another, any money, goods or chattels or any banknote * * * if the property stolen is of the value of twenty dollars or more.' Hogs are within the description of property which is the subject of larceny under the terms of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mckenna v. State
... ... grand larceny of grapefruit which he has stolen from trees ... because it is not the subject of larceny. This contention is ... not tenable. See Summerlin v. Orange Shores, Inc., ... 97 Fla. 996, 122 So. 508, where we held such fruits of trees ... to be chattels. Also see Curington v. State, 80 Fla ... 494, 86 So. 344 ... It is ... also contended that the provisions of section 5266, R. G. S., ... section 7385, C. G. L., precludes the prosecution for the ... offense of grand larceny where the facts are as those ... presented here. That section is designed to ... ...
-
Burshan v. NATIONAL UNION FIRE INS. COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.
...jewels, coin, garments, and everything else that can be put in motion and transferred from one place to another. Curington v. State, 80 Fla. 494, 86 So. 344, 345 (1920) (quoting 1 BOUVIER'S Law Dictionary 315). A survey of Florida law reveals that the trespass cause of action has been appli......
-
Consalvo v. State
...any intimation from the trial court as to the force of presumptions of fact arising from ... the testimony." Curington v. State, 80 Fla. 494, 497, 86 So. 344, 345 (1920). It is improper to give this instruction when its only possible effect is to allow the jury to presume that a defendant i......
-
Moore v. State
...without any intimation from the trial court as to the force of presumptions of fact arising from ... the testimony." Curington v. State, 80 Fla. 494, 86 So. 344, 345 (1920). Under the instruction, before the jury could make the presumption, it would have to find that the property was stolen......