Stalcup v. State

• Citation: 28 N.E. 1116,129 Ind. 519
• Parties: Stalcup v. State.
• Decision Date: 04 November 1891
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

129 Ind. 519

28 N.E. 1116

Stalcup

v.State.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 4, 1891.

Appeal from circuit court, Greene county; J. C. Briggs, Judge. Affirmed.

Indictment of Liberty Stalcup for larceny. Judgment of conviction. Defendant appeals.

W. F. Galemore, for appellant.

OLDS, J.

The appellant was indicted for grand larceny, charged with the stealing of a horse, the property of one Nancy Curtis, of the value of $100. The cause was submitted to the court for trial. The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the state's prison. The appellant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and exceptions reserved, and the ruling assigned as error. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the judgment ought to be reversed, for the reason that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of the defendant guilty by the court. The evidence shows that the horse was taken from where it was fastened, at a church in the town of Bloomfield, about 7 o'clock in the evening; that parties saw it taken, and the person was immediately pursued, and some two miles from the place where the horse was taken, and near another church, called “Bethel Church,” the horse was found loose in the highway, worn and tired. Three persons followed in pursuit of the horse and the person taking it. They testify to having ridden very rapidly, and that the roads were muddy, and they made considerable noise. There is an abundance of evidence identifying the appellant as being in the town of Bloomfield on that evening, and at the church about the hour the horse was taken. Indeed, he admits being there, and a number of persons identify him as the person who unloosed the horse by unsnapping the hitching strap, and leaving it tied to the hitching rack or fence, got upon the horse and rode it away, the witnesses being at the time but a short distance from appellant, and some of them immediately notified the person who had ridden the horse to the church and hitched it, and he and two others immediately made pursuit to recover the horse. There is also no controversy about the fact that appellant was at Bethel Church, near where the horse was found, when the persons in pursuit reached there; and a number of witnesses testify that he came in late, and but a short time before those in pursuit reached the place. The appellant testifies in his own behalf, and denies having taken or ridden the horse, or of having any knowledge of its being taken. When the persons...