James v. State

Citation62 So. 897,8 Ala.App. 255
PartiesJAMES v. STATE.
Decision Date21 June 1913
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied July 8, 1913

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Hale County; Charles E. Waller Judge.

Syd James was convicted of buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in concealing a bale of cotton, knowing it to be stolen, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Evins & Jack, of Greensboro, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PELHAM J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of buying, receiving concealing, or aiding in concealing a bale of cotton, knowing it to be stolen, and not having the intent to restore it to the owner.

The bill of exceptions shows objection after objection made to questions calling for manifestly legal testimony clearly admissible in evidence. In every instance a motion is shown to have been made to exclude the answer, and exception reserved to the adverse ruling of the court. It would appear from the fact that one of the grounds of objection stated in nearly every instance was "that the corpus delicti of the offense had not been established," that it was upon the idea that the corpus delicti had not been proven that the objections were interposed. There is nothing in this contention. It had been shown that the bale of cotton had been taken from the ginhouse, where it was stored, without the consent of the person who had charge and custody of it for the owner, and that a bale bearing the same marks had been hauled from the direction of the gin, by the defendant and a companion, in a wagon towards a warehouse; that it was put in the warehouse by the defendant's companion, who took a receipt in his name for it; and that the defendant again joined his companion as he drove off from the warehouse, where the cotton had been deposited. Even if this be considered only circumstantial evidence, the corpus delicti may be shown by such proof. Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 14 So. 868; Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42; Colquitt v. State, 61 Ala. 48; Johnson v. State, 59 Ala. 37; Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187.

It was also shown that this bale of cotton was sold by the defendant on the same day it was stored in the warehouse, and that the defendant exhibited a sample of the bale to a buyer and delivered to him the warehouse receipt that had been issued for it. The warehouse receipt held by the defendant stood in lieu of the bale of cotton, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT