Pyland v. State

• Decision Date: 30 April 1857
• Citation: 36 Tenn. 357
• Parties: JEFFERSON F. PYLAND v. THE STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

36 Tenn. 357

JEFFERSON F. PYLAND

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April Term, 1857.

FROM HAYWOOD.

The prisoner was indicted of grand larceny in the circuit court of Haywood county. At the March term, 1857, before Judge Read, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of three years. He appealed in error to this court.

Thomas G. & William M. Smith, for the prisoner; L. M. Campbell and Sneed, attorney-general, for the State.

Caruthers, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal in error from a conviction of the crime of grand larceny in the circuit court of Haywood. Various errors are assigned.

1. It is insisted there was no trespass in the taking. The prosecutor, in changing his clothes in the office of his livery stable, unintentionally left his purse, containing the bank-notes and some gold pieces, lying on an old saddle behind the door in the corner of the office, and while he was gone to his dinner the purse and its contents were taken by the defendant and Williamson, who were jointly indicted; or it was taken up by a boy, not known, in the presence of defendant and by his direction, and handed to him. This, it is insisted, was not larceny, because it did not involve a trespass in the taking, as the purse was not taken from the possession of the owner. There certainly can be no question upon this point since our decision in the case of Pritchett v. The State, 2 Sneed, 285, and other recent cases. A constructive possession is sufficient, but here was an actual possession. The fact of taking is not controverted: as to that, the proof is clear and indisputable.

2. It is not, nor could it be, controverted that genuine bank-notes are the subject of larceny in this State; but it is contended that the indictment must contain a particular description of them, or at least name the bank by which they were issued, as well as allege that they were genuine and valuable. The charge here is that they were bank-bills of certain denominations of the value, etc. The objection taken is that it is not stated what bank they were upon, and the case of Baldwin v. The State, 1 Sneed, 415, is referred to as an authority to that effect. It is true, in that case the court said the designation of the bank alone was a sufficient description. It was argued there that more was required. It was not held in that case that it was essential to the validity of the indictment that the name of the bank which issued the notes should be stated. We think an indictment charging the stealing of valuable bank-notes is good, so far as description is concerned. It would in many cases be impracticable to do more, and to require it would operate, in practice, to save the guilty from just punishment. How often would it happen that a man would not recollect the kind of notes he had in his purse or pocket-book, although he would know they were genuine and valuable, and were stolen by the accused! There is no good reason for such strictness, nor is it necessary for the ends of justice.

The gold coin, and the four-dollar bill...