Harris v. State

• Decision Date: 12 October 1888
• Parties: HARRIS v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

7 S.E. 689

81 Ga. 758

HARRIS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 12, 1888

Error from city court of Atlanta; VAN EPPS, Judge.

F. R. Walker, for plaintiff in error.

F. M. O'Bryan, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS, J.

Joe Harris was convicted in the city court of Atlanta of the offense of simple larceny, in two cases. He made a motion for a new trial in both cases, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The motion was overruled, and he expected. The evidence, in substance, is as follows: Harris went to the store of J. M. High, and also to the store of John Ryan's Sons, and represented to them that he was the agent of Moore & Marsh to buy certain dry-goods boxes. They sold the boxes, and made out the bill against Moore & Marsh. They did not sell them to Harris, or intend the title of the boxes to go into Harris. They delivered him the possession of the boxes to be carried to Moore & Marsh. He was not the agent of Moore & Marsh, nor did they know anything about his purchasing the boxes from High and Ryan's Sons. Harris sold the boxes, and appropriated the proceeds of the sale to his own use. Counsel for Harris contend that this state of facts does not constitute the crime of simple larceny. We think it does. The rule is that "if one, meaning to steal another's goods, fraudulently prevails on the latter to deliver them to him, under the understanding that the property in them is to pass, he commits neither larceny, nor any other crime, by the taking, unless the transaction amounts to an indictable cheat. But if, with the like intent, he fraudulently gets leave to take the possession only, and takes and convents the whole to himself, he becomes guilty of larceny; because, while his intent is thus to appropriate the property, the consent, which he fraudulently obtained, covers no more than the possession." I Bish. Crim. Law, § 583, and authorities there cited. In this case Harris fraudulently represented to High and Ryan's Sons that he was the agent of Moore & Marsh. They did not sell him the goods, nor did they intend the title to go into Harris; but they simply delivered him the custody of the goods, to be delivered by him to Moore & Marsh. He having converted the proceeds of the sale of the boxes to his own use, he was guilty of larceny. The title still remained in the vendor. Harris got the custody of the goods wrongfully and fraudulently. Judgment affirmed.