McCowan v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1893 |
| Parties | MCCOWAN v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lafayette Circuit Court, CHARLES W. SMITH, Judge.
The motion in arrest of judgment sustained. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.
T. E Webber for appellant.
The judgment should have been arrested. The allegation of ownership is necessary and must be laid in the names of the joint and several owners, not in partnership name. 47 Ark 233; 29 id. 68; 37 id. 116; 42 id. 73; 55 id. 246; 2 Bish Cr. Law, sec. 718 et seq.
James P. Clarke, Attorney General, for appellee.
Under the common law, the ownership must be alleged in the names of the joint and several owners. But the tendency now is to disregard technicalities and formalities. Our code is in harmony with this reformation. Crim. code, sec. 127. This is not a case of variance, as in 55 Ark. 244, but the indictment designates the ownership in a manner simple and plain enough for a person of common understanding to grasp it, and this is sufficient under the code. 80 Cal. 229; 77 Cal. 445; 19 Cal 598; 13 Bush (Ky.), 337; 55 Ark. 244.
The indictment in this case is for larceny, and describes the property alleged to have been stolen as "two ladies' walking jackets," and lays the ownership in "W. L. Connevey & Co.," without stating the names of the firm or partnership of "W. L. Connevey & Co. and without further description of the property alleged to have been stolen. There was a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the names of all the joint owners of the property were not stated in the indictment, which was overruled.
At common law, if the stolen goods are the property of partners, or joint owners, the names of all the partners or joint owners must be stated. The case of the People v. Bogart, 36 Cal. 245, was an indictment for larceny, in which the ownership of the coins stolen was laid in "Wells, Fargo & Co.," without stating the names of the firm of "Wells, Fargo & Co." and without stating that "Wells, Fargo & Co." was the name of a corporation. This was held insufficient under the California code, which is substantially the same as ours. According to that case, we hold that if "W. L. Connevey & Co." is the name or style of a firm or partnership, the names of the several persons who compose the firm should be stated. Or if the indictment should state that one member of the firm, naming him or her, had special property in the goods stolen by reason of separate possession, an allegation of ownership in him or her would be sufficient. If "W. L. Connevey & Co." is the name of a corporation, the indictment would have been good, had it contained an allegation to that effect, Id.; People v. Schwartz, 32 Cal. 160; 2 Bishop, Cr. Pro. secs. 718, 723; Hogg v. State, 3 Blackf. 326; Commonweatlh v. Trimmer, 1 Mass. 476; 1 Bishop, Cr. Pro. sec. 493 et seq.
It is true that, in 19 Cal. 598, in the case of People v. Ah Sing, an indictment for larceny, which laid the ownership of the stolen goods in "Hanach, Eisner & Co.," without further description of the owners, was held sufficient, under a provision of the California code, which is exactly the same as the 2nd clause of section 2121 of Mansfield's Digest, which provides that an indictment is sufficient if it contains a "statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended. "
In the case of Reed v. Commonwealth, 70 Ky. 641, 7 Bush 641, an indictment for larceny was held sufficient which laid the ownership of the stolen property as "the property of the Tennessee River Packet Co., D. W. Swan Little Brothers and others," without stating the names of the several owners. To support this the court relied upon a provision of the Kentucky code which is the same exactly as section 2107 of Mansfield's Digest, which provides that "no indictment is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceeding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Koppala v. State
...(Com. v. Percy, 2 Allen, 173.) The property of a corporation must be laid in the corporation. (People v. Bogart, 32 Cal. 248; McCowen v. State, 58 Ark. 17.) No legal proof made of the corporate existence of Hanna Coal Company No. 1, nor was it stated in the information under the laws of wha......
-
McLemore v. State
...stolen is material, and must be proved as alleged. Instruction 11, requested by appellant, should have been given. 73 Ark. 32; 55 Ark. 244; 58 Ark. 17; 97 Ark. 3; 63 Ark. 518; 74 Ark. 442; 145 U.S. 611; 54 384; 79 Ark. 499; 91 Ark. 28; 80 Ark. 23; 87 Ark. 412. Wm. L. Moose, Attorney General......
-
Crouthers v. State
... ... special ownership as to entitle him to the possession and ... control of the stolen property. Wells v ... State, 102 Ark. 627, 145 S.W. 531; Cook v ... State, 80 Ark. 495, 97 S.W. 683; Merritt v ... State, 73 Ark. 32, 83 S.W. 330; McCowan v ... State, 58 Ark. 17, 22 S.W. 955; Blankenship ... v. State, 55 Ark. 244, 18 S.W. 54; Scott v ... State, 42 Ark. 73; Brown v. State, ... 108 Ark. 336, 157 S.W. 934; Gooch v. State, ... 60 Ark. 5, 28 S.W. 510; State v. Esmond, ... 135 Ark. 168, 204 S.W. 210 ... [154 ... ...
-
Crouthers v. State
...State, 102 Ark. 627, 145 S. W. 531; Cook v. State, 80 Ark. 495, 97 S. W. 683; Merritt v. State, 73 Ark. 32, 83 S. W. 330; McCowan v. State, 58 Ark. 17, 22 S. W. 955; Blankenship v. State, 55 Ark. 244, 18 S. W. 54; Scott v. State, 42 Ark. 73; Brown v. State, 108 Ark. 336, 157 S. W. 934; Gooc......