State v. Belt

• Decision Date: 27 October 1923
• Docket Number: 11310.
• Citation: 119 S.E. 576,125 S.C. 473
• Parties: STATE v. BELT ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

119 S.E. 576

125 S.C. 473

STATE v. BELT ET AL.

No. 11310.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 27, 1923

Appeal from Greenville County Court; M. F. Ansel, Judge.

Thomas Belt and another were convicted of larceny, and they appeal. Reversed, and a new trial ordered.

H. P Burbage and J. R. Bryson, both of Greenville, for appellants.

W. E Bowen, Sol., of Greenville, for the State.

MARION J.

The defendants were convicted of larceny upon an indictment charging under two counts (1) housebreaking and (2) larceny.

The evidence from the state tended to establish that a storehouse was broken into and that goods of the value of about $275 were stolen therefrom; that a portion of the stolen property was found in a suit case in Belt's home; that a portion thereof was found secreted in cotton seed stored in a house near or on the premises of Norris; and that Norris was wearing a pair of the stolen shoes.

The evidence for the defendants tended to establish that while Belt was traveling on the public highway the suit case in question fell out of an automobile ahead of him; that he stopped, picked it up, and tried to overtake the car from which it had fallen, but failed to catch up; that he then brought the suit case to his home and told his wife to look out for advertisements in newspapers; that no one had claimed the property, and that he had kept the suit case and contents "just as he found them" in his house; that the shoes worn by Norris had been given him by a certain named person; that he did not know they were stolen, and did not know of the goods hidden in the seed until they were accidentally discovered there by his brother; and that upon such discovery, suspecting for the first time that the shoes as well as the hidden goods had been stolen, he had consulted with his brother and a neighbor and was on the verge of reporting the matter to the officers when arrested.

The learned county judge charged the jury as follows:

"This law was called to my attention by reading a late case by the Supreme Court. 'The intent to steal need not have existed at the time of obtaining possession of the property, if followed by a felonious appropriation.' State v. Craig, 116 S.C. 442, 107 S.E. 926. The facts in that case were different from this, but the law is all I have reference to. Also I will read from State v Davenport, 38 S.C. 348, 17 S.E. 37, 'Where goods of another are taken and carried away without felonious intent, but afterwards feloniously appropriated, the crime of larceny becomes complete.' The point of law is if one comes in possession of goods not his own and keeps in his possession and puts them to his own use, it is larceny. State v. Kinnon is another citation. Those are the principles of law applicable to this case."

It was the contention of the defendants that their possession of the property alleged to have been stolen was merely that of finders of lost property, the ownership of which they did not know and had no reasonable means of knowing or ascertaining. If believed, the evidence adduced by defendants was susceptible of inference which would support that contention, certainly in so far as the defendant Belt was concerned. In instructing that the legal test of the guilt of the accused was the proposition that "if one comes in possession of goods not his own, and keeps in possession and puts them to his own use, it is larceny," we think the trial judge committed prejudicial error.

The general rule is that--

"The finder of lost property must know or have reasonable means of knowing or ascertaining the owner in order to render him guilty of larceny." 17 R. C. L. p. 38, § 41.

Or, as stated by Mr. Justice Hydrick, in State v. Posey, 88 S.C. 313, 70 S.E. 612:

"If money [or property] is found under such circumstances that there is absolutely no clue to the ownership, and no reasonable expectation that the owner can be found, the finder has a legal right to appropriate it to his own use, and would not be guilty of larceny in doing so. But he would be, if, knowing the owner, or having a reasonable clue to the ownership, he fraudulently converts it to his own use. 25 Cyc. 36, State v. Ferguson, 2 McM. 502.

...