State v. Collins, No. 23305.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtBailey
Citation237 S.W. 516,292 Mo. 102
PartiesSTATE v. COLLINS.
Decision Date18 February 1922
Docket NumberNo. 23305.
237 S.W. 516
292 Mo. 102
STATE
v.
COLLINS.
No. 23305.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
February 18, 1922.

[237 S.W. 517]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Sterling E. McCarty, Judge.

Walter Collins was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Defendant, Walter Collins, and one Lonnie Fewell were jointly charged in an information filed in the circuit court of Pemiscot county, Mo., on November 3, 1920, with the crime of grand larceny, in that on the _____ day of July, 1920, at Pemiscot county aforesaid they feloniously stole, took, and carried away a cow, the property of one Charlie Ward, of the value of $50. A severance was granted, and on November 16, 1920, a jury found defendant Collins guilty of grand larceny, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years, and judgment was rendered accordingly.

The evidence on behalf of the state tends to show substantially the following facts: That Charlie Ward, who lived near Steele in Pemiscot county, Mo., in July, 1920, was the owner of a large short-horned Durham red cow, about six years old; that she disappeared, and was found on the premises of one Sanders, who lived near Holland in said county; that Sanders bought said cow from defendant, Collins; that Ward commenced an action against Sanders to recover possession of said cow, and Sanders turned her over to him; that, after selling the cow to Sanders, the defendant left Missouri, and went to the state of Arkansas, where he remained until his arrest; that said cow was held at one time by Williams, who treated her as a stray, and dehorned her to save his own cattle from injury; that defendant claimed to be the owner of said cow, while in possession of Williams, and urged him to turn over the possession of same to him (defendant); that he threatened to have Williams arrested, if he did not turn over the cow to him; and took her from Williams' possession; that said cow had horns about one foot in length when Williams dehorned her; that she was taken from the possession of Williams in June or July, 1920; that Ward purchased the cow from Tom Trimm, who, with his wife, identified her as the cow he had sold Charlie Ward; that she had some scars on her right side, caused by hauling her on a sled; that this was the same cow Ward got from Sanders; that the value of said cow was $100.

Defendant's Evidence:

The evidence on behalf of defendant tended to show he had been inquiring for a red heifer that had been gone about two years; that the cow in question is the same cow that Lonnie Fewell bought from defendant, Collins; that W. H. Collins, the father of appellant, knew the cow in controversy, and felt pretty certain that he had raised her; that she strayed off about two years before the trial; that he gave this cow to the defendant; that at that time the cow had nice straight horns, but was afterwards dehorned by Williams; that after Ward brought an action of replevin against Sanders to recover the cow defendant's father advised the boys to pay up the cost, and let Ward have the cow; that defendant's folks gave Sanders back his money.

Appellant testified in his own behalf that he knew the cow in question; that she was given to him by his father when she was two years old, past; that she strayed away; that he looked for her, and finally found her in possession of Mr. Williams; that her horns had been cut off; that it was the same cow his father had given him; that he got her from Williams, brought her back home, and contracted to sell her to Lonnie Fewell, after which, he made arrangements to let Sanders have her; that he (defendant) owed Sanders $23.90, and Sanders wanted his money; that appellant had no other way of paying him; that he and Fewell made a trade, whereby appellant let Sanders have the cow, and paid Lonnie Fewell back $15; that at the time he took the cow from Williams he believed her to be the same cow his father gave him; that defendant, on the advice of his father, W. H. Collins, gave Sanders his note for the amount Sanders had paid for the cow, signed by himself, Fewell, and W. H. Collins, secured by a mortgage on a team of mares; that the above note had been paid at the time of trial; that after this settlement defendant worked about one week in said county, and he and Fewell then went to Arkansas, about 30 miles from where they lived, to work; that Ward then swore out a warrant for them, and they were arrested on August 15, 1920. Defendant offered testimony tending to show that Ward, in describing his cow to witnesses, said she had one long horn and a "slipped" horn; that Williams, who dehorned said cow, said she did not have a "slipped" horn.

The instructions given and refused, as well as the rulings of the court, will be considered, as far as necessary, in the opinion.

Defendant, in due time, filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. Both motions were overruled, and he duly appealed from the judgment against him to this court.

[237 S.W. 518]

Sam J. Corbett and Shelley I. Stiles, both of Caruthersville, for appellant.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Albert Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BAILEY, C. (after stating the facts as above).


I. The information herein charges defendant with grand larceny in stealing Ward's cow, in Pemiscot county, Mo., in July, 1920, and is based on section 3312, B. S. 1919, which reads as follows:

"Every person who shall be convicted of feloniously stealing, taking and carrying away any money, goods, rights in action, or other personal property, or valuable thing whatsoever of the value of thirty dollars or more, or any horse, mare, gelding, colt, filly, ass, mule, hog or meat cattle, belonging to another, shall be deemed guilty of grand larceny; and dogs shall for all the purposes of this chapter be considered personal property."

Appellant contends...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...of respondent's injuries and the compensation he was entitled to recover therefor. Hoover v. Ry. Co., 227 S.W. 79; Maloney v. U. Rys. Co., 237 S.W. 516; Sacre v. Ry. Co., 260 S.W. 88. (c) The trial court, in supervising the amount of the verdict, exercised a discretionary power which should......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...injuries and the compensation he was entitled to recover therefor. Hoover v. Ry. Co., 227 S.W. 79; Maloney v. United Rys. Co., 237 S.W. 516; Sacre v. Ry. Co., 260 S.W. 88. (c) The trial court, in supervising the amount of the verdict, exercises a discretionary power which should not be revi......
  • Brady v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 29996.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 2, 1932
    ...injuries and the compensation he was entitled to recover therefor. Hoover v. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 227 S.W. 77; Maloney v. U. Rys. Co. (Mo.), 237 S.W. 516; Sacre v. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 260 S.W. 85. (c) The trial court, in supervising the amount of the verdict, exercises a discretionary power, which sho......
  • State v. Morrison, 5846
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 19, 1932
    ...20 Ann. Cas. 627, 103 P. 62; People v. Jones, 160 Cal. 358, 117 P. 176; Sprouse v. State, (Okla. Crim. App.) 3 P.2d 918; State v. Collins, 292 Mo. 102, 237 S.W. 516.) Fred J. Babcock, Attorney General, and Z. Reed Millar, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. Even though the evidence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Howard v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co., No. 32092.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...of respondent's injuries and the compensation he was entitled to recover therefor. Hoover v. Ry. Co., 227 S.W. 79; Maloney v. U. Rys. Co., 237 S.W. 516; Sacre v. Ry. Co., 260 S.W. 88. (c) The trial court, in supervising the amount of the verdict, exercised a discretionary power which should......
  • Harlan v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 32085.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1934
    ...injuries and the compensation he was entitled to recover therefor. Hoover v. Ry. Co., 227 S.W. 79; Maloney v. United Rys. Co., 237 S.W. 516; Sacre v. Ry. Co., 260 S.W. 88. (c) The trial court, in supervising the amount of the verdict, exercises a discretionary power which should not be revi......
  • Brady v. Wabash Ry. Co., No. 29996.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 2, 1932
    ...injuries and the compensation he was entitled to recover therefor. Hoover v. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 227 S.W. 77; Maloney v. U. Rys. Co. (Mo.), 237 S.W. 516; Sacre v. Ry. Co. (Mo.), 260 S.W. 85. (c) The trial court, in supervising the amount of the verdict, exercises a discretionary power, which sho......
  • State v. Morrison, 5846
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 19, 1932
    ...20 Ann. Cas. 627, 103 P. 62; People v. Jones, 160 Cal. 358, 117 P. 176; Sprouse v. State, (Okla. Crim. App.) 3 P.2d 918; State v. Collins, 292 Mo. 102, 237 S.W. 516.) Fred J. Babcock, Attorney General, and Z. Reed Millar, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. Even though the evidence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT