Hendricks v. State

• Decision Date: 10 June 1931
• Citation: 39 S.W.2d 580,162 Tenn. 563
• Parties: HENDRICKS et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

39 S.W.2d 580

162 Tenn. 563

HENDRICKS et al. v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 10, 1931

Appeal from Criminal Court, Davidson County; Charles Gilbert, Judge.

Roy Hendricks and another were convicted of larceny, and they appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

E. D Jackson, of Nashville, for plaintiffs in error.

W. F Barry, Jr., of Nashville, for defendant in error.

CHAMBLISS J.

This was a conviction for larceny with a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. The plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted for larceny and for concealing stolen goods consisting of four cart wheels of the alleged value of $48 the property of the Federal Chemical Company, a manufacturer of fertilizers, located in the suburbs of Nashville. An old negro peddling watermelons, and driving a wagon which belonged to Hendricks, was stopped by one of the employees of the Federal Company who claimed to recognize the four wheels on the wagon as wheels which had been owned and used by the company on carts about the plant. Hendricks was sent for and made the explanation that he had purchased the wheels some time before from different parties, getting two of them through plaintiff in error Brooks, and insisted that he did not know that they had belonged to the Federal Company, and gave a rather consistent account of his connection with them. His indictment followed and Brooks was indicted with him, as before stated. It appears that Brooks had been working for Hendricks at one time driving this wagon and while so engaged, when one or more of the wheels broke down, his story is that he found and put on the wagon two old and abandoned cart wheels which he found on the Chemical Company's dump. It does not appear that he informed Hendricks of this, but left him under the impression that he had purchased them from another party.

Without going into extended details, we think the evidence is not at all clear and satisfactory, particularly as supporting the conviction of Hendricks for larceny. There is a good deal of doubt on the record as to when the wheels were stolen, if at all. The company had a great many carts and were continually buying and replacing the worn out wheels; the wheels were distinguishable from ordinary wagon wheels, according to some of the proof, but not conspicuously so, and, also, there is a good deal of evidence that wheels of this identical type were in use by two other Chemical Fertilizer Companies in the vicinity. There is no direct evidence that either of these parties stole the wheels, and there is some doubt as to the establishment of the corpus delicti. Without, however, passing definitely on the assignments challenging the preponderance of the evidence, we think the case must be reversed, at least as to Hendricks, on the following grounds:

On the trial of the case, defendant Hendricks testified in his own behalf. On cross-examination he was asked (Tr. 55) "I am going to ask you if you were...