Pillow v. State, Cr. 3811.

• Decision Date: 26 September 1932
• Docket Number: Cr. 3811.
• Citation: Pillow v. State, 52 S.W.2d 964, 186 Ark. 1198 (Ark. 1932)
• Parties: PILLOW v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

52 S.W.2d 964

PILLOW v.STATE.

Cr. 3811.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

September 26, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County, Chickasawba District; Neil Killough, Judge.

R. J. Pillow was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Harrison, Smith & Taylor, of Blytheville, for appellant.

Hal L. Norwood, Atty. Gen., and Pat Mehaffy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted for stealing twenty-eight chickens on or about the 15th day of January, 1931, the property of Mr. and Mrs. G. H. Caldwell, who resided in Mississippi county, Ark.From the judgment of conviction, an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.

Appellant's first assignment of error for a reversal of the judgment is that the chickens found in his possession were not sufficiently identified as the chickens stolen from Mr. and Mrs. Caldwell.Appellant was apprehended and arrested in Memphis, Tenn., in the act of selling twenty-eight chickens that he had brought to the city from Mississippi county.They were in a wooden coop.The officer who arrested him directed the manager of the poultry house, to whom appellant had sold the chickens, to transfer them to a wire coop and keep them in it until the next day.He returned the next day for the chickens and assisted in transferring them from the wire coop, where the manager had put them, into the original wooden coop.When interrogated as to whether the chickens he received were the same ones he left with the manager, he stated that he could positively identify two of them on account of their coloring but could not be positive as to the other twenty-six.When the coop of chickens received by the officer from the poultry house was returned to Mississippi county, Mrs. Caldwell identified the chickens as her property, and they were delivered to her.It is argued by learned counsel for appellant that the chickens received by the officer the next day from the manager of the poultry house and identified by Mrs. Caldwell as her chickens were not the same chickens appellant sold to the manager.There is nothing in the record to support this argument.When the officer arrested appellant, he directed the manager to transfer the chickens from the wooden coop to the wire coop.When he returned the next day, he found the correct number of chickens in the wire coop, two of which he positively identified, and helped take them out of the wire coop and put them back in the wooden...