Hampton v. State
| Citation | 78 Tenn. 639 |
| Parties | Ransom Hampton v. The State. |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1882 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal in error from the Circuit Court of Coffee County. J. J. WILLIAMS, J.A. S. MARKS for Hampton.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEA for The State.
Defendant below was convicted under sub-section 14 of section 4652 of the Code, and has appealed in error to this Court.
The sub-section cited makes it a misdemeanor “to maliciously destroy, injure or secrete any goods, chattels, or valuable papers of another.”
The indictment charges that the defendant did unlawfully and maliciously secrete one mule of the value of fifty dollars, one wagon of the value of twenty-five dollars, four bushels of wheat of the value of four dollars, and one sausage mill of the value of one dollar, of the goods and chattels of one Annie Hampton.
Defendant is an old man of 78 years of age, peevish and childish, and the prosecutrix is the widow of his son. They had lived in part of the same house with defendant until the summer of 1881, when the son went to Eureka Springs for his health and shortly thereafter died. His wife had accompanied him to the Springs, and he left behind him the articles of property specified in the indictment.
The articles being exempt from execution, were claimed by the wife as her property. On the other hand, the defendant had, perhaps, assisted in raising some money for his son's expenses upon his visit to the Springs, and insisted this property should be applied to paying the debt made for borrowed money.
The record further shows that the defendant was advised by counsel to take possession of the property peaceably, and he did take the mule and wagon and lock them in his lot, and being informed that threats were made to break the lock and retake the property, he removed the mule and wagon.
There is no evidence of the secreting of any wheat, and the weight of evidence is that the sausage mill was the property of defendant.
The mule and wagon were restored to the possession of the prosecutrix by writ of replevin sued out by her.
There was error in the admission of hearsay evidence of declarations of H. Duncan by Yant, but in the view we have taken of the case, it is scarcely necessary to discuss such error.
A good deal of evidence is added showing defendant's violent temper and abuse of the prosecutrix and others. But we do not think the evidence shows that the conduct of defendant was induced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiggin v. State
...the mischief must itself be the object of the act and not merely incidental to some other act lawful or unlawful. (See also Hampton v. State, 78 Tenn. 639, 10 Lea Tenn.) 639.) A somewhat similar question to that at bar arose in Johnson v. State, 61 Ala. 9, where the defendant Johnson was ap......
-
Perry v. Sharber
...the light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that the defendant's horses were not taken or secreted maliciously. In Hampton v. State, 78 Tenn. 639 (1882), the court held that where the accused kept a wagon and a mule under lock and key under the erroneous belief that the property ......
-
Christian v. Clark
... ... The bill further alleged that Clark had left [78 Tenn. 633]the State, and then resided in Illinois. The complainants were proceeding on the assumption that Clark had title to the land, and had made some kind of ... ...