Ladeaux v. State

• Decision Date: 08 June 1905
• Citation: 103 N.W. 1048,74 Neb. 19
• Parties: LADEAUX v. STATE.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

74 Neb. 19

103 N.W. 1048

LADEAUX

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 8, 1905.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Larceny is a felonious taking and carrying away of the personal goods or chattels of another with intent to deprive the owner of his property therein and to appropriate the same to the use of the taker. Asportation, nonconsent of the owner, and a felonious intent to thereby convert the stolen property to the defendant's own use are necessary elements of larceny.

2. Evidence examined, and held insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of the crime charged in the information against the defendant in the case at bar.

Error to District Court, Cherry County; Westover, Judge.

Peter Ladeaux was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Reversed.F. M. Wolcott and A. M. Morrissey, for plaintiff in error.

Norris Brown, Atty. Gen., and W. T. Thompson, Dep. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HOLCOMB, C. J.

From a judgment of conviction on a verdict of guilty of the crime of horse stealing, the defendant, an Indian, prosecutes error. He was informed against in the trial court for the larceny, with another, of several head of horses from a large pasture, where they were being grazed. The evidence is purely of a circumstantial nature. It is earnestly urged upon our attention that the evidence is wholly insufficient to support a verdict of guilty as against the defendant in this action. The other party was not tried on the information charging the defendant herein and such third party jointly with the crime. That the evidence would be sufficient to support a verdict as against the other party, had he been tried, is altogether clear. The defendant was prosecuted and convicted on the theory that he was found in the possession of stolen property soon after the commission of the crime, and that such possession was unexplained. A very thorough search of the evidence found in the bill of exceptions fails to disclose a scintilla of evidence showing that the defendant had possession of the stolen property, either actual or constructive, at any time after the commission of the theft, or that he exercised any control, authority, or dominion over the stolen property, or made any attempt or effort to do so. There is nothing in the record to justify the inference that he had conspired with the other party to commit the theft, or that they were acting jointly or in concert regarding the control, possession, and disposition of the property after the theft had been committed. The most than can possibly be said is that they were together a short time before the offense was committed at a place where the defendant was well known, and in a neighborhood where he was accustomed to visit, and where his presence was altogether consistent with innocence, and that some time after the commission of the offense he was again seen in company with the undoubted offender while the latter was in the possession and trying to dispose of the horses that had previously been stolen. But the evidence shows that the defendant had been accustomed to visit this place also, and that he was well known there. There is some testimony in the record to the effect that, while some of the...