State v. Carter

• Decision Date: 07 October 1903
• Citation: 96 N.W. 710,121 Iowa 135
• Parties: THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. S. E. CARTER, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

96 N.W. 710

121 Iowa 135

THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. S. E. CARTER, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 7, 1903

Appeal from Boone District Court.--HON. J. R. WHITAKER, Judge.

INDICTMENT for larceny of twenty-three head of cattle. From a judgment of conviction, defendant appeals.-- Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Spurrier Forbes & Mills for appellant.

C. W Mullan, Attorney General, and C. A. Van Vleck, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

No contention is raised that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. It tends to show that on the night of April 19, 1901, twenty-three head of cattle were stolen from the herd of Ira Luther, in Boone county, and driven eastward to the town of Kelly, in Story county. At that point appellant was in possession of the cattle, and shipped them to Chicago. On the trial he sought to explain his possession of the cattle by saying that he met a stranger in Ames, several miles distant from Kelly, who claimed to have a car load of cattle at the latter place which he wished to sell, and that after some negotiation, and having ascertained by telephone that the cattle were in fact in the yards at Kelly, he bought them, paying $ 800 in cash, and giving his note for $ 200. It was shown that on the night of the larceny appellant was in Boone county not far from Luther's premises, where the cattle were kept, and on that day or evening left his boarding place with the statement that he was going to Ames. These facts, with others given in evidence, abundantly sustain the verdict, and there is no reason for interfering with it, unless we find reversible error in the matters complained of in argument.

I. In the course of impaneling the jury, one Sparks was called into the box, and was challenged on the ground that Hon. D. R. Hindman, who was assisting the county attorney in the trial of the case, was acting as the juror's attorney in another matter. The challenge was overruled, and error is alleged thereon. In support of this exception we are cited to section 5360 of the Code, which provides that a juror "standing in the relation of guardian and ward, master and servant, landlord and tenant, or being a member of the family of the defendant," is subject to challenge for cause. The challenge under consideration does not come within the terms of this statute. The sub-division quoted from has reference entirely to those relations between the defendant and the juror which may be made a ground of challenge. If it had been intended to make the relation between the juror and counsel a sufficient objection, it was easy to so provide in specific terms, as has been done in the matter of challenges in civil cases. Code, section 3688. It may be furthermore remarked, in reference to the case before us, that the record does not show that the juror objected to served upon the trial, or that appellant exhausted all his peremptory challenges. There was no error in the ruling.

II. The appellant, having testified in his own behalf, was asked upon cross-examination whether in the year 1897 or 1898 he was not tried and convicted in Warren county upon a charge of obtaining a man's signature to a promissory note by false pretenses. Objection to this interrogation being overruled the appellant answered: "I do not know whether I was or not. * * * I do not know as you would call it convicted. I never served any sentence for anything of that kind, and never a day in jail or prison in my life serving time." Appellant concedes that, under Code, section 4613, "a witness may be interrogated as to his previous conviction of a felony, " but if we understand the argument of counsel, it is contended that the question must be substantially in the language of the statute, and that to...