Slaughter v. State

• Decision Date: 25 April 1901
• Citation: 113 Ga. 284,38 S.E. 854
• Parties: SLAUGHTER et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

38 S.E. 854

113 Ga. 284

SLAUGHTER et al.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 25, 1901.

LARCENY—EVIDENCE—CONSPIRACY— APPEAL.

1. Since in misdemeanors all are principals, If one who is a private detective falsely represent to a merchant that the latter is being systematically robbed, and offer to detect the thief for a certain reward, which the merchant agrees to pay for the detection and conviction of the thief, and afterwards the detective, through an agent, for the purpose of obtaining the reward, induce an employe of the merchant to steal certain articles of value, which are brought to the detective, and by him surren dered to the merchant, the detective, as well as his agent and the merchant's employ, was guilty of larceny; the value of the articles stolen being such as to make the offense a misdemeanor.

2. Where several persons conspire to do an unlawful act, the acts and declarations of one of them pending the enterprise are admissible in evidence against the others, although the former may not be on trial or indicted.

3. There was some evidence tending to show the guilt of the accused, and the trial judge was satisfied with the verdict of the jury. This court will therefore not interfere with the refusal to grant a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Fulton county; A. W. Fite, Judge.

Bradley Slaughter and Horace Looney were convicted of larceny, and bring error. Affirmed.

Westmoreland Bros, and T. L. Bishop, for plaintiffs in error.

C. D. Hill, Sol. Gen., for the State.

SIMMONS, C. J. Bradley Slaughter and Horace Looney were jointly Indicted and convicted of the offense of larceny. They moved for a new trial, and the judge overruled the motion. To this judgment they excepted. Construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the verdict, we find it substantially as follows: Slaughter, Horace Looney, and D. S. Looney, Horace Looney's father, were private detectives. On January 15, 1901, Slaughter told Schaul, a merchant, that his store was being systematically robbed, and that Slaughter would catch the thief for $50. Schaul stated that nothing had been recently missed from the store, but that he would take the matter under consideration. On the 18th of the same month, in another conversation, Schaul agreed to pay Slaughter $50 reward for the detection and conviction of the alleged thief. Jackson, a negro bootblack who was used by the defendants in some of their detective work, was told by D. S. Looney that, if he saw any one attempting to sell stolen goods, to bring the articles to his office. Shortly thereafter Fluellen, a negro boy employed In Schaul's store, turned over to Jackson, for sale, a finger ring. Jackson took the ring to the office of the private detectives. They told him to retain it for the time, and afterwards D. S. Looney told Jackson to have Fluellen "get" a watch. Jackson told Fluellen that he could sell a watch for him if he would get it, and Fluellen brought a watch to Jackson. Jackson on January 22d carried this watch to the office of the detectives, and turned it over to Horace Looney. On the next day Slaughter telephoned Schaul to come to the office. Upon Schaul's arrival, Slaughter showed him the watch and ring, and asked him if he could identify them. He identified the watch as having come from his store, but could not say whether it had been stolen or sold. The watch was then taken to Schaul's partner, who Immediately identified It as a watch that had been stolen; for he had given a tray of watches to Fluellen to clean, and had afterwards missed this watch from the tray. The ring was like some carried In stock by Schaul, but was a cheap ring, of a character not easy to identify. No other articles were missed from the store of Schaul, and it may be inferred from the evidence that nothing else was stolen at or about this time. It appeared without contradiction that Fluellen stole both the ring and the watch. Jackson testified that neither of the defendants nor D. S. Looney had told him to have Fluellen steal a watch, but only to have him "get" a watch. Fluellen testified that he had been induced to steal both the ring and the watch by Jackson's continued solicitation; Jackson stating to him that there were some people in an office who wanted a watch and ring, and who would buy them it he would steal them. It appears that the watch and the ring were returned by the detectives to Schaul, the owner.

1. One of the grounds of the motion for a new trial was that the court erred in charging the jury substantially what is set out in the first headnote hereto; the complaint being that the defendants were not Indicted for conspiracy, and that the charge dealt with an offense different from that with which the defendants stood charged. We think this ground of the motion without merit. The facts that one of the detectives solicited a reward from Schaul for the detection of a thief represented to be systematically robbing Schaul's store; that Schaul agreed to pay the reward; that another of the detectives had Jackson induce Fluellen to steal from Schaul's store; that the stolen articles were turned over to the third detective, and subsequently returned to their owner; that nothing else was missed from the store; and that all these things took place within a very few days, —would clearly indicate that there was a conspiracy or joint scheme, to which the detectives and Jackson were parties, to have Fluellen commit the larceny, and then to claim the reward for his detection. In misdemeanors there are no accessories before the fact, or principals in the second degree, but "all who would be such in felonies are principals in misdemeanors." Kinnebrew v. State, 80 Ga. 232, 5 S. E. 56....