State v. Bohall
| Decision Date | 14 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | 38693 |
| Citation | 222 N.W. 389,207 Iowa 219 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. ABNER BOHALL, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Harrison District Court.--W. C. RATCLIFF, Judge.
An indictment for the crime of grand larceny of hogs. From a judgment entered on the verdict of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
C. W Kellogg and William P. Welch, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Attorney-general, and Neill Garrett, Assistant Attorney-general, for appellee.
ALBERT J. STEVENS, C. J., and DE GRAFF, MORLING, and WAGNER, JJ concur.
One A. A. Waite operated a farm located on the Lincoln Highway, between Logan and Woodbine, in Harrison County, which farm was owned by George and A. J. Coe. Waite had a herd of hogs on said farm, and in October, 1925, certain of the hogs were missing. Defendant, Abner Bohall, lived on a farm some eight or ten miles distant from the Waite farm. After the disappearance of the hogs from the Waite farm, the prosecuting witness, Waite, went to defendant's farm, and claims to have found there three hogs which he identified as belonging to him by reason of certain marks on the hogs placed there by him, and also by the general appearance of the hogs, they being black Poland China breed. These hogs were also identified by A. J. Coe, one of the owners thereof; also by one Arnold, a hired man of Waite's who helped to mark the hogs.
Two witnesses, Lingo and Roden, testified that they assisted the defendant in stealing hogs from the Waite place at about the time these hogs were alleged to have been stolen; that they were put into a touring car, and carried to defendant's place. It appears from the testimony of these two witnesses that three hogs were taken from the Waite place at one time, and two at another.
So much of the testimony is recited for the purpose of meeting the first objection made by the defendant, in which he claims that the testimony of these two accomplices, Lingo and Roden, was not corroborated. The evidence in the case abundantly corroborates these witnesses.
The State elected, on motion of the defendant, to stand on the theft of the three hogs first stolen, and the objection is that, since it did so, the evidence showing the taking of two other hogs at or near the same time cannot be considered for the purpose of corroboration. But even if we assume this to be true, the trouble is that the court, in its...
To continue reading
Request your trial