State v. Bridges, 35897.
Decision Date | 20 December 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 35897.,35897. |
Parties | STATE v. BRIDGES. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; Warren L. White, Judge.
Johnnie Bridges was convicted of larceny, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence L. Bradley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the circuit court of Greene County under an indictment charging the larceny of "four truck wheels and 4 Silvertown, heavy-duty tires, size 17×600, with rims and tubes, of the value of $50.00, and the property of Lester Garton." The jury was unable to agree on his punishment, and so said by its verdict, and the court assessed the same at a term of two years in the state penitentiary. Judgment was entered and sentence pronounced accordingly, and after unsuccessful motion for a new trial, an appeal was allowed, but appellant has filed no brief.
The facts: The prosecuting witness lived on a farm Northeast of Springfield. He was the owner of a 1926 Chevrolet truck, which was equipped with wheels taken from a 1935 Pontiac, together with tires and tubes fitting the description of those charged in the information. Two of the tires and tubes had been purchased in October or November, 1935, and two of them in December of that year. In adapting the Pontiac wheels to the Chevrolet truck it had been necessary to bore additional holes in the wheels, which were painted black with aluminum hub caps. Overloading the truck had caused the casings on the rear wheels to become cut or scraped by coming in contact with some object on the rim — probably the lugs, or bolts. These peculiarities made the identification of the articles charged to have been stolen more readily ascertainable.
The Chevrolet was in its accustomed place in a shed on the premises of the prosecuting witness on the night of January 28, 1936. The next morning Garton discovered that the truck had been "stripped." "The wheels and tires of the truck were off, and the truck thrown on the ground — the axles were on the ground." Also missing was a car jack of a certain description, but it was not one of the articles covered by the information. An old Ford jack was found that morning in the shed, which the prosecuting witness had never seen before. Investigation lead the prosecuting witness and officers to the home of appellant, who likewise lived in the country, where, on or about February 5, according to the testimony of the witness Garton, who was accompanied by the dealer who had sold him the tires, the following occurred:
In removing the tire Bridges used a jack which Garton believed to be the one stolen from him. The tire was taken into Springfield, and Garton returned to the Bridges place with two officers for the purpose of obtaining the other three tires and the jack. Bridges had gone to a blacksmith shop operated by one Vaughn, about two miles from the Bridges place. He was found at the latter place, and he, together with the goods mentioned, was taken to Springfield. Bridges was questioned by the officers, and he told them that he had gotten the wheels and tires "from a man over on Campbell Street near the city lot, and that he had changed them there on the street by blocking the car up with bricks, and that he had drilled them with a nail bit and brace." He said further that he had traded four wheels and tires from his Model "A" Ford and $10 "to boot" for the articles in question, and that the man with whom he traded was a total stranger. The next day he changed his story and said the trade had taken place a block and a half south of the city lot, and he admitted that he didn't drill them with a nail bit and brace, and that one Vaughn, hereinabove referred to, had drilled them for him. The wheels removed from Bridges' car had been freshly painted in black with green hub caps, and had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brown
...4065)2 Varble v. Whitecotton, 354 Mo. 570, 190 S.W.2d 244 (banc 1945); State v. Hailey, 350 Mo. 300, 165 S.W.2d 422 (1942); State v. Bridges, 123 S.W.2d 67 (Mo.1938); State v. Hart, 331 Mo. 650, 56 S.W.2d 592 (1932); State v. Knight, 312 Mo. 411, 278 S.W. 1036 (1925).3 " '1. By imprisonment......
-
Dreyer v. Videmschek
... ... But the rule provides it shall be sufficient to state the legal effect of documentary evidence where there is no dispute ... 123 S.W.2d 64 ... as to its ... ...
-
Dreyer v. Videmschek
... ... But ... the rule provides it shall be sufficient to state the legal ... effect of documentary evidence where there is no dispute ... [123 S.W.2d 64] ... ...
-
State v. Brown
... ... detail and with particularity. The above assignments fail to ... comply with this section. State v. Bridges, Mo.Sup., ... 123 S.W.2d 67, as an authority on assignment No. 6, and ... State v. Bagby, 338 Mo. 951, 93 S.W.2d 241, as an ... authority for ... ...