France v. State

• Decision Date: 22 December 1900
• Parties: FRANCE v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

60 S.W. 236

68 Ark. 529

FRANCE v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 22, 1900

Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court, JEPHTHA H. EVANS, Judge.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The appellant, L. France, was jointly indicted with Charles Clem and Boley Kuykendall for the crime of grand larceny. The indictment charged that they stole 250 pounds of meat belonging to one Oliver. France and the two other defendants lived a short distance from Van Buren, while Oliver lived about eleven miles north of that place. The meat was stolen from Oliver's smoke-house on the night of April 9, 1900. Late in the afternoon of that day these three young men were seen going along a public road which ran in the direction of Cedar creek and along towards Oliver's house. Oliver lived beyond the creek about a mile and a half, and the men were not seen beyond the creek. About a mile or mile and a half before they came to the creek, they passed by the dwelling of Will Prewitt. Prewitt had at his place two gray horses which were owned by one Wiyzer, a brother-in-law of Prewitt, who lived near Van Buren. Prewitt had kept the horses several months, and, although they were often turned out at night, they had shown no disposition to return to the home of their owner at Van Buren. On the morning after the meat was stolen, these horses were gone from Prewitt's place, and on that same morning were found near Van Buren not far from the home of their owner, and not far from the homes of the defendants. There was grease on the mane and shoulders of the horses.

The defendant, France, and several other witnesses, several of whom were put on the stand by the state, testified that these three men, France, Clem and Kuykendall, had gone that afternoon to Cedar creek, intending to fish and spend the night on the creek. After they got to the creek the clouds threatened rain, and on this account they say that they returned early in the night, reaching home about nine o'clack. They say that they did not go nearer to Oliver's place than the creek, which was a mile and a half away, and no witness saw them nearer. Search was made for the meat, but it was never found, and the only indication or trace of it discovered was the grease on the shoulders of the two horses of Wiyzer.

A day or two after the meat was stolen, these three went to the Indian Territory, which adjoined the county where they lived and was only a few miles away. They remained there a day and two nights, and then came back home. When officers attempted to arrest them, they ran, and stayed out one or two nights and it was several days before they were arrested. Their excuse for endeavoring to evade the officers was that they had learned that warrants were issued for their arrest, and not being able to make bond, they ran to avoid being put in jail, but intended to surrender soon.

Upon trial France was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year in the penitentiary, and from this judgment he appealed.

Judgment reversed cause remanded.

Chew & Fitzhugh, for appellant.

Jeff Davis, attorney general, and Chas. Jacobson, for appellee.

OPINION

RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts.)

The main contention on this appeal is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. It is the theory of the prosecution that the accused men stole Oliver's meat, and used the two horses of Wiyzer to bring it down to Van Buren or near there. The meat was undoubtedly stolen, and we believe that the thieves used the horses of Wiyzer to carry it away, but who those thieves were the evidence does not show. Leaving out the fact that France and the two other suspected men endeavored to evade arrest, there is nothing in the evidence to connect them with the crime charged. The evidence shows that, late in the afternoon before the meat was stolen, they were seen going along a public highway leading towards the place from which the meat was stolen. But they explained this by saying that they were going to Cedar creek to spend the night fishing. The testimony was not contradicted, but was corroborated by several witnesses who testified for the state. These witnesses, though introduced by the state, were relations and friends of defendant, and the jury may not have believed them. But if we disregard the testimony favorable to defendants, we have only the fact that they were seen on a public road a...