Houpt v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 157 |
| Parties | HOUPT v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court, Scott Wood, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
William G. Bouic, for appellant.
J S. Utley, Attorney General, Elbert Godwin and Wm. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.
Sam Houpt prosecutes this appeal from a judgment of conviction against him for grand larceny, charged to have been committed by stealing one Dodge touring car of the value of $ 500 from E. L. Barkley in Garland County; Ark.
According to the evidence for the State, E. L. Barkley and his wife jointly purchased and owned a Dodge touring car in August, 1921. It was a five-passenger car, and had nickel- plated bumpers on the front and rear of the car. The lights were also nickel- plated, and the car had been in use less than a year at the time it was stolen on the night of Saturday, July 1, 1922. E. L. Barkley was the proprietor of a Piggly-Wiggly store in the city of Hot Springs, Garland County, Ark., and a young man who works in the store drove the car in front of the store on the night in question and left it there. He then delivered the key to E. L. Barkley, and no one could drive the car after it had been locked without a similar key with which to unlock it. Soon afterwards, on the same night, the car was driven away by some unknown person, and in about ten days thereafter it was recovered. The car was worth about $ 1,000 at the time it was stolen. E. L. Barkley had the car in his care and custody at the time it was stolen. On the night the car was stolen a captain of police in the city of Hot Springs saw Sam Houpt driving the car. The captain of police knew Barkley's car and recognized the car by its similarity to that of Barkley. Immediately after he saw the car pass he heard that Barkley's car had been stolen. The car was found out in the country near where Sam Houpt lived. After Sam Houpt was arrested, he admitted that he was driving a car on the streets of Hot Springs on the night that Barkley's car was stolen, but said that the car belonged to Tolbert Teague. The officer who saw Sam Houpt driving the car testified that he knew the car of Tolbert Teague, and that the car he saw Sam Houpt driving was not Teague's car.
This evidence clearly shows that Barkley's car was stolen, and it is sufficient to identify the defendant as the person who stole the car. An officer saw the defendant driving a car immediately after Barkley's car was stolen, and the car driven by the defendant exactly fitted the description of Barkley's car. In fact the officer, when he saw Barkley's car after it had been recovered, identified it as the car which he saw the defendant driving just after Barkley's car was stolen. This was sufficient to connect the defendant with the larceny of the car. Hence the assignment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoover v. State, CR-77-187
... ... Cook v. State, 80 Ark. 495, 97 S.W. 683; Monk v. State, 105 Ark. 12, 150 S.W. 133; Houpt v. State, 157 Ark. 171, 247 S.W. 770. Subsequent to our decision in Von Tonglin, we held that it is not error to allege ownership in one who was in possession and control of the property. Tate v. State, 204 Ark. 470, 163 S.W.2d 150 ... We have also held that the allegation of ... ...
-
Houpt v. State
... 247 S.W. 770 HOUPT v. STATE. (No. Supreme Court of Arkansas. February 12, 1923. Page 771 Appeal from Circuit Court, Garland County; Scott Wood, Judge. Sam Houpt was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed. William G. Bouic, of Hot Springs, for appellant. J. S. Utley, Atty. Gen......