Hendry v. State
| Decision Date | 01 June 1897 |
| Citation | 22 So. 647,39 Fla. 235 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | HENDRY v. STATE. |
Error to circuit court, De Soto county; Barron Phillips, Judge.
John Hendry, alias Tobe Hendry, was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. In the prosecution of an accused for larceny of cattle, a witness for the prosecution, who stated that he was familiar with the rules and customs of stock men in the county in which the crime was alleged to have been committed, was asked on cross-examination if it had not been the custom among cattle owners of the county for many years to drive to market and sell the cattle of their neighbors, when they were on friendly terms with each other, without any special authority for so doing, and with the understanding that they would be paid by the men who drove the cattle such price as they could obtain for them in the market, with or without a reasonable compensation for the driving; and, on objection by the state the question was excluded. Held that, it not having been made to appear, and there being no offer to show, that the accused was a cattle owner in the county, on friendly terms with the owner of the cattle alleged to have been stolen, or in any situation to avail himself of the custom sought to be proven there was no error in the ruling.
2. There can be no legal custom to justify one man in stealing the property of another, as such a custom would be contrary to law and bad.
3. The testimony examined, and held to be sufficient to sustain the verdict.
COUNSEL Wall & Stevens, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was indicted, tried, and convicted of the larceny of cows, the property of one Adam Mercer, and sentenced to the penitentiary for one year. Two assignments of error are insisted on for a reversal of the judgment; the first being the rejection of certain testimony sought to be elicited by plaintiff in error from the witness Ziba King and the second relating to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.
Ziba King, testifying for the prosecution, stated that he ran a butcher shop at Punta Gorda, and that some time in May, 1894 defendant delivered to him, at his butcher shop in De Soto county, about 19 head of cattle, and among them were 6 or 7 in the mark and brand of Adam Mercer; that witness knew the mark and brand of Mercer, and defendant stated at the time of the delivery of the cattle that he was authorized to sell them. Witness bought the cattle from defendant, and paid him for 17 head, most of which were butchered. On cross-examination of this witness, after stating that he had been extensively engaged in the cattle business for 25 years, and was familiar with the rules and customs of stock men in De Soto county, the following question was propounded, viz.: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Groover v. State
... ... feloniously to deprive the owner permanently of his property ... at the time of the taking, is an essential element in the ... crime of larceny, and whether such intent existed is a ... question of fact to be determined by the jury from all the ... facts of the case. See Hendry v. State, 39 Fla. 235, ... 22 So. 647; Long v. State, 44 Fla. 134, 32 So. 870; ... Jarvis v. State, 73 Fla. 652, 74 So. 796 ... The ... rule announced in the case of Dean v. State, 41 Fla ... 291, 29 So. 638, 79 Am. St. Rep. 186, that where one in good ... faith takes another's ... ...
-
Daniels v. State
...intent necessary for larceny is animus furandi, Long v. State, 11 Fla. 295 (1866), which means the intent to steal, Hendry v. State, 39 Fla. 235, 22 So. 647 (1897), and includes the intent to deprive. Fountain v. State, 92 Fla. 262, 109 So. 463 (1926). The essential elements of larceny are ......