Holden v. State

• Decision Date: 06 April 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 284.)
• Citation: 270 S.W. 596
• Parties: HOLDEN v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

270 S.W. 596

HOLDEN v. STATE.

(No. 284.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 6, 1925.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; T. G. Parham, Judge.

Sol Holden was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

A. J. Johnson, of Star City, for appellant.

H. W. Applegate, Atty. Gen., and John L. Carter and Darden Moose, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

HART, J.

Sol Holden prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against him for grand larceny, charged to have been committed by stealing 1,200 pounds of seed cotton, of the value of $100, the property of R. R. Rice.

The first assignment of error is that the verdict is not legally supported by the evidence. On the part of the state, it was shown that the cotton in question was grown on the farm of R. R. Rice, in Lincoln county, Ark., by a negro called Cool Shorty Shorty was to pay one-fourth of the cotton raised by him as rent. He was also indebted to Rice for supplies, and it was their custom for the cotton to be sold by Rice and the proceeds applied, first to the payment of the rent, and the balance to the payment of the supply account.

Holden procured Augustus Bradley to drive a wagon containing a bale of cotton to a gin at the town of Gould. The cotton was out on the pike and Holden told Bradley, if any one asked whose cotton it was, to tell them that it belonged to him (Holden). This was in the nighttime. The evidence shows that the cotton in question was raised on the farm of R. R. Rice by Cool Shorty. Holden went ahead of the wagon on horseback, and took charge of the cotton at the gin. He had it ginned as his own cotton, and then sold it as his own cotton. The cotton was sold without the knowledge or consent of Rice. The value of the rent cotton in question, belonging to Rice, was $32 or more.

It is next insisted that there is a variance between the proof and the indictment. We cannot agree with counsel in this contention. The indictment charged that Holden sold 1,200 pounds of seed cotton, of the value of $100, the property of R. R. Rice. The proof shows that this cotton was grown on the farm of R. R. Rice, and that he had a lien on it for rent and supplies. A tenant by whom the cotton was grown was to pay him one-fourth of it for rent, and the balance was to be applied to the payment of his supply account. The cotton was to be sold by Rice. It is fairly inferable from this testimony that the cotton was in the possession of Rice, and that he had a special...