Jones v. State
| Decision Date | 17 October 1912 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. H. Price, Judge.
Ben P Jones was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Reversed with directions.
Syllabus by the Court
A description of stolen property as 'one female animal of the bovine species, nearly two years old,' alleges with sufficient accuracy that the animal was a cow or heifer, and satisfies Gen. St. 1906, s 3299.
An admission by the accused in open court of facts showing venue is sufficient proof thereof.
The claimant of an animal alleged to have been stolen may testify as to where and by whom the animal was raised.
When the sentence imposed is below the minimum fixed by law, the case will be sent back for proper sentence.
COUNSEL Calhoun & Campbell, of Marianna, for plaintiff in error.
Park Trammell, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, of Tallahassee, for the State.
Jones was convicted of stealing 'one female animal of the bovine species, nearly two years of age, with a white body and red head, and without horns, marked swallow fork in one ear and underbit in the other ear, a more particular description of same being to the grand jurors unknown, the property of one R. Wardlow.'
It is here insisted that the indictment should have been quashed because no value of the animal is given, if the indictment proceeds under the general statute against larceny; and if under General Statutes, § 3299, set out at length in Mobley v. State, 57 Fla. 22, 49 So. 941, 17 Ann. Cas. 735, directed against horse and cattle stealing, it fails to allege that the animal stolen was a 'cow, heifer, calf, steer, or what.' The indictment sets out the sex and age of the animal, so that it could only be a cow or heifer, both of which are named in the statute; the theft of either being identically the same crime, with the same penalty and irrespective of value. The word 'bovine' comes from the Latin word 'bos,' meaning ox or cow, and in common parlance applies only to those well-known domestic animals which have so long supplied the people of this country with both meat and drink. The accused could not possibly have been misled or endangered by the description of the animal, and in fact was not, as it is clearly shown the sole question was whether he had bought the particular cow or heifer from Wardlow.
We fail to see how it can be seriously...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Graves
...be described by the name usually applied to it or by which it is commonly known. Young v. People, 193 Ill. 236, 61 N. E. 1104;Jones v. State, 64 Fla. 92, 59 So. 892, L. R. A. 1915B, 71; Joyce on Indictments (2d Ed.) § 424. A finished product of manufacture may be described by the name given......
-
Holloman v. State
...30 Fla. 82, 11 So. 536; Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713; Irvin v. State, 52 Fla. 51, 41 So. 785, 10 Ann.Cas. 1003; Jones v. State, 64 Fla. 92, 59 So. 892, 71; Hunter v. State, 64 Fla. 315, 60 So. 786; Taylor v. State, 67 Fla. 127, 64 So. 454; Smith v. State, 71 Fla. 639, 71 So. 91......
-
Hammond v. State
... ... & M ... Digest. Our statute only requires a statement of the acts ... constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language and ... in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding ... to know what is intended. Section 3028, C. & M. Digest, ... subdiv. 2. In Jones v. State, 64 Fla. 92, ... 59 So. 892, L. R. A. 1915B, p. 71, it is said: "If a ... sufficiently certain description cannot be given because ... unknown, such fact, if alleged in the indictment or ... information, will generally cure the otherwise insufficiency, ... for the law is not inclined ... ...
-
State v. Nugent
...Lunford, supra. As to the sufficientcy of description of property in an indictment for larceny, this is stated in a note to Jones v. State, 64 Fla. 92, 59 So. 892, L.R.A.1915B, 71, in the L.R.A. volume: 'To apply the rules deducible from the cases it seems that property alleged to have been......