Meadows v. State

Decision Date15 January 1952
Docket Number5 Div. 342
Citation36 Ala.App. 402,56 So.2d 789
PartiesMEADOWS et al. v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Powell & Powell, Tuskeegee, and L. H. Walden, Montgomery, for appellants.

Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Chas. C. Carlton, of counsel, for the State.

CARR, Presiding Judge.

Columbus Meadows, John W. Banks, and Albert Upshaw were jointly indicted for grand larceny and receiving stolen property. The former offense was charged in the first count of the indictment and the latter in the second.

The three indictees were tried jointly. Meadows and Banks were convicted of grand larceny, and Upshaw was acquitted of both offenses.

The evidence is not in conflict in respect to the prime question presented for our review.

Archie Dick was pasturing some of his cattle near the farm of John Banks. Six head of these cows got out of the pasture and were found in Bank's field destroying the growing crops. Banks drove the cows out of the field and enclosed them in a pen near his home.

Soon thereafter Dick was advised about the detention and why they were detained.

Some effort was made to make adjustments for the damage to the crops. The parties failed in this attempt, and the cows remained in the pen in Banks' possession for about thirty days.

At the expiration of this time Banks engaged appellant Meadows to truck the cows to Montgomery for the purpose of selling them. The cattle, loaded, in Meadow's truck, were found in Upshaw's garage. It appears that some repairs were needed to the truck before the trip to Montgomery could be continued.

The property was seized by the officers and claimed by the owner.

Banks gave in his testimony this reason for attempting to sell the cows: 'It seemed to me like he didn't want them and I was selling them to get some damages for my corn they eat up.'

Larceny is the felonious taking and carrying away of personal property of another with intent on the part of the taker to convert it to his own use, or to deprive the owner thereof. The offense involves a trespass on the possession of another. Ludlum v. State, 13 Ala.App. 278, 69 So. 255; McKinney v. State, 12 Ala.App. 155, 68 So. 518; Kramer v. State, 16 Ala.App. 456, 78 So. 719; Weldon v. State, 17 Ala.App. 68, 81 So. 846.

If a person acquires the possession of personal property tortiously, and thereafter forms the intent and executes the purpose to convert it, he may be guilty of larceny. King v. State, 15 Ala.App. 67, 72 So. 552; Weaver v. State, 77 Ala. 26; Dozier v. State, 130 Ala. 57, 30 So. 396.

In the case of King v. State, supra, this court had occasion to pronounce the rules of law which have application to the case as bar. It may be noted that it was declared in the King case that the question of intent under the evidence was for the jury.

A full delineation of the facts does not appear in the opinion. We have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Davidson v. State, 6 Div. 322
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 4, 1977
    ...property of another with intent on the part of the taker to convert to his own use, or to deprive the owner thereof. Meadows v. State, 36 Ala.App. 402, 56 So.2d 789; Armstrong v. State, 49 Ala.App. 396, 272 So.2d Exactly one hundred years ago Justice Stone in the case of Rountree v. State, ......
  • Belcher v. State, 4 Div. 318
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 18, 1975
    ...I Counsel for appellant maintains the court erred in overruling his motion to exclude the state's evidence. In Meadows v. State, 36 Ala.App. 402, 56 So.2d 789, this court '. . . Larceny is the felonious taking and carrying away of personal property of another with the intent on the part of ......
  • Woods v. State, 8 Div. 661
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 18, 1975
    ...it to his own use, or to deprive the owner thereof. The offense involves a trespass on the possession of another. Meadows v. State, 36 Ala.App. 402, 56 So.2d 789; Armstrong v. State, 49 Ala.App. 396, 272 So.2d Loss of property by felonious taking may be proved by facts and circumstances as ......
  • Armstrong v. State, 8 Div. 287
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 23, 1973
    ...property of another with intent on the part of the taker to convert to his own use, or to deprive the owner thereof. Meadows v. State, 36 Ala.App. 402, 56 So.2d 789. In Travis v. State, 32 Ala.App. 637, 29 So.2d 359, this court said, "larceny' is the felonious taking and carrying away of ch......

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