Henry v. State
| Decision Date | 11 May 1900 |
| Citation | 36 S.E. 55,110 Ga. 750 |
| Parties | HENRY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where, by special contract, a chattel is pledged by one as security for his debt, the pledgee has a special property in the thing pledged; and when the pledgor takes the property from the pledgee's control and possession with a fraudulent intent of depriving the pledgee of the security he may be convicted of larceny under a charge of stealing property belonging to the pledgee.
2. There was sufficient evidence in the present case to show such a delivery of the property as to constitute a valid pledge in law, and to authorize a conviction of the accused for stealing the same.
Error from city court of Albany; R. Hobbs, Judge.
Sherman Henry was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Affirmed.
D. F Crosland, for plaintiff in error.
John D. Pope, Sol. Gen., for the State.
Sherman Henry was placed upon trial in the city court of Albany, Ga upon an accusation charging him with entering the dwelling house of one Temple Mack with intent to steal, and with wrongfully, fraudulently, and privately taking and carrying away therefrom, with intent to steal the same, one suit of clothes, and one bicycle of the value of $15, the personal property of said Mack. To this accusation he pleaded not guilty. Briefly stated, the following is the substance of the testimony introduced on the trial: Tempie Mack, the prosecutrix, testified that the accused came to her to engage board. She replied to him that he would have to pay her in advance, as she had lost so much by boarders. Accused replied that he had a trunk full of clothes and a bicycle, and that he would deliver them to her as security for the board. This conversation took place during the day, and that night the accused came back to the home of prosecutrix, bringing with him his trunk and bicycle, and said, "Here is a suit of clothes that cost me $8.00, and a bicycle, that I turn over to you as security for my board." She accordingly received these chattels, and had them placed in a room in her house occupied by her son. The accused also was assigned to this room, where he lodged as a boarder. He kept the key to his trunk, wore the clothes, and rode the bicycle occasionally. In the trunk was a new suit of clothes. He agreed to pay two dollars per week for board, and he remained in the house as a boarder a little over three weeks, for which he was due seven dollars. A demand was made on him for the money. He left the house, leaving the bicycle and trunk therein. Two or three days afterwards the landlady missed the bicycle. She then examined his trunk, and found the new suit of clothes had also been taken away. It further appeared from the testimony that the accused had sold the bicycle, and was wearing the new suit of clothes in another place, where he was engaged in work. The accused introduced no evidence, but made a statement in which he admitted that he told the landlady his trunk and clothes would be responsible for his board, but denied delivering them to her, stating he kept the key to his trunk, wore his clothes, and rode his bicycle whenever he wished; said he did not intend to steal anything, but he put on the new suit of clothes to attend to a job in Arlington, where he was working when arrested, and simply desired to make some money so that he could pay his board. The judge of the city court, before whom the case was tried without a jury, after hearing the evidence, found the accused guilty, whereupon he made a motion for a new trial on the general ground that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. To the judgment of the court overruling this motion the accused...
To continue reading
Request your trial