Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1894 |
| Parties | SMITH. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Larceny—Evidence.
The charge being simple larceny, the evidence of guilt not being satisfactory, and there being no proof whatever as to value, a new trial is ordered.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Floyd; W. T. Turn-bull, Judge.
John Smith was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Reversed.
The following is the official report:
Smith was charged with the larceny of six poplar saw logs belonging to the Harris Hartshorn Lumber Company. He was found guilty, and, his motion for new trial being overruled, excepted. The motion was upon the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, without evidence to support it, decidedly and strongly against the weight of the evidence, and contrary to law and the principles of justice.
The evidence of the state was to the following effect: Some time prior to the 17th of June, 1893, Hartshorn discovered at Camp's sawmill, in Rome, Ga., a raft of logs claimed by defendant. In the raft he found six poplar logs which had the brand of the Harris-Hartshorn Lumber Company, which company began business before August, 1892. Several other logs appeared to have had a brand, but it could not be recognized. It seemed as though the brand had been obliterated by blows from something like an axe. Hartshorn had a brand-new hammer made and sent up to Murray county, where logs were being cut by the company. When trees were cut in Murray and other counties, they were sent down to Hartshorn, and sawed up into lumber. None of the logs were cut in Floyd county. The six logs which Hartshorn took from Smith's raft had been cut in Murray county, and not in Floyd. The logs were branded with a hammer made for the company with a special brand. Hartshorn recognized the brand as soon as he saw the logs. Some were under the water, and he could not see them. Logs were cut, and then drifted out into the river. Hartshorn called Printup, Brown, and others to look at the logs in defendant's raft at Camp's mill. Hartshorn had talked with defendant about the logs before Hartshorn took them, and defendant claimed they were his logs. Defendant seemed somewhat excited. Some time before this, Hartshorn had employed defendant to raft some logs for the Harris-Hartshorn Company, and knows defendant was familiar with the brand of the company. Printup and Brown testified corroborating Hartshorn as to the brands being those of the Harris-Hartshorn Company, and as to appearances indicating that an effort had been made to obliterate some of the brands. The sawyer of the Harris-Hartshorn Company saw the raft of logs in question, and identified six of the logs as belonging to the Harris-Hartshorn Lumber Company. They had the brands of the company on the end. He could not identify any more, but knows that all the logs belonged to the company. They were poplar logs. Some were under the water, and he could not see the ends. Camp testified: He is the owner of the sawmill. He saw the brand on the end of one of the logs, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ayers v. State
...be shown. Davis v. State, 40 Ga. 231; Bane v. State, 113 Ga. 1040, 39 S. E. 463; Hawkins v. State, 95 Ga. 458, 20 S. E. 217; Smith v. State, 95 Ga. 460, 21 S. E. 45; McCrary v. State, 96 Ga. 348, 23 S. E. 409. The courts will not take judicial cognizance that any article is of value, unless......
-
Ayers v. State
... ... State, 88 Ga. 32, 13 S.E. 829. In other ... cases proof merely that the stolen article is a thing of ... value is sufficient. No particular value need be shown ... Davis v. State, 40 Ga. 231; Lane v. State, ... 113 Ga. 1040, 39 S.E. 463; Hawkins v. State, 95 Ga ... 458, 20 S.E. 217; Smith v. State, 95 Ga. 460, 21 ... S.E. 45; McCrary v. State, 96 Ga. 348, 23 S.E. 409 ... The courts will not take judicial cognizance that any article ... is of value, unless the law itself so designates it ... Johnson v. State, 109 Ga. 268, 34 S.E. 573; ... Wright v. State, 1 Ga.App. 158 (5), 57 ... ...
-
Hartshorne v. Smith
...him to the mercy of the court." The plaintiff then introduced in evidence the remittitur from the supreme court in the case of Smith v. State, 21 S. E. 45, showing that the verdict of guilty in the city court had been set aside, and a new trial granted. Smith testified that he had been arre......
-
Hartshorne v. Smith (State Report Title: Hartshorn v. Smith)
...him to the mercy of the court." The plaintiff then introduced in evidence the remittitur from the supreme court in the case of Smith v. State, 21 S.E. 45, showing that the verdict of guilty in the city court had set aside, and a new trial granted. Smith testified that he had been arrested u......