State v. Craige
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Citation | 45 Am.Rep. 698,89 N.C. 475 |
| Parties | STATE v. JAMES F. CRAIGE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
INDICTMENT for larceny tried at Spring Term, 1883, of ORANGE Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.
The state introduced as a witness one Orren Suggs, who testified that he and one C. P. Suggs were millers, and kept the mill of Mrs. Purifoy, in Orange county; that they both took charge of the mill in January, 1883, and at that time the defendant had wheat at the mill, in garner No. 54, amounting to forty and a half bushels, for which he gave defendant a receipt; that he moved the defendant's wheat at the time he measured it into garner No. 53, and owing to certain circumstances, witness again removed defendant's wheat from garner No. 53 to garner No. 51; that at the time of this last removal he again measured defendant's wheat in garner No. 51, and there were twelve and a half bushels of wheat in that garner more than there ought to have been, and this twelve and a half bushels he poured in the other garners in the mill containing wheat of other persons, from which wheat had been missing; that J. W. Cheek, Jr., had two garners in the mill containing wheat (Nos. 49 and 50), and the wheat in these garners belonged to J. M. Cheek, Jr.; that garner No. 50 was only separated from defendant's garner, No. 51, by an inch plank partition, which did not extend to the top of the garners.
The witness further testified, that in the month of March last the defendant came to the mill, and, after waiting some little time in the first story of the building, the defendant went up-stairs into the second story, where the garners were. In a short time the witness went up-stairs and saw defendant leaning over garner No. 50, containing J. M. Cheek's wheat, and with his hands rapidly throwing the wheat from garner No. 50 into garner No. 51, containing the defendant's wheat; and the witness stood and watched him; that the defendant, after discovering the witness, began to throw the wheat up and let it fall back into the garner containing J. M. Cheek's wheat, and thereupon the witness told defendant that he had been suspecting him for some time, and now he had caught him, and was going to prosecute him. Defendant asked what he (defendant) was doing? Witness replied, “throwing J. M. Cheek's wheat from his garner into defendant's.” Defendant said he was only examining the wheat, and threw it back into the same garner. Witness replied: “I know you did that after you saw me.” Defendant then acknowledged it and tried to get him not to prosecute him.
Witness also, on cross-examination, said that neither the defendant nor any one else would have gotten from the mill, by his consent, any more wheat than his receipt called for, and that defendant would not have gotten more than forty-and-a-half bushels.
Defendant's counsel asked His Honor to charge the jury that under the facts of the case there was no asportation, and defendant could not convicted, but this instruction was refused, and defendant excepted.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he appealed from the judgment pronounced.
Attorney-General, for the state .
Messrs. Graham & Ruffin and John Manning, for defendant .
The only exception taken in the court below was to the refusal of His Honor to give the instruction asked, that there was no asportation of the wheat. There was no error in the refusal of the court to give the instruction.
Larceny is defined to be the felonious taking and carrying away the personal goods of another. 4 Blk., 229. There must not only be a taking but a carrying away to constitute the crime. Arch. C. L., 190. And it is held by all the authorities that a bare removal from the place where the goods are found by the thief, though he does not make off with them, is a sufficient asportation or carrying away. Thus if a thief, intending to steal plate, take it out of a chest in which it was, and lay it down on the floor, but be surprised before he can make his escape with it; so where the defendant drew a book from the inside pocket of the prosecutor's coat, about an inch above the top of the pocket, but while the book was still about the person of the prosecutor, the prosecutor suddenly put up his hand, upon which the defendant let the book drop and it fell in the prosecutor's pocket; it was held in both of these cases that there was a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dix
...the goods are found by the thief, though he does not make off with them, is a sufficient asportation or carrying away.' State v. Craige, 89 N.C. 475, 477 (1883). Our research has disclosed no case--and none has been called to our attention--where a common law state in which kidnapping has n......
-
State v. Kincaid
... ... is nothing that takes the case out of the general rule that ... exceptions not entered at the trial will not be considered on ... appeal. C. S.§ 590; State v. Braddy, 104 N.C. 737, ... 10 S.E. 261; State v. Jones, 69 N.C. 16; State ... v. Craige, 89 N.C. 479, 45 Am. Rep. 698; State v ... Glisson, 93 N.C. 509 ... Not ... infrequently the opinions of nonexpert witnesses are received ... in evidence ex necessitate. It is sometimes impossible for a ... witness to state pertinent facts in such manner as to enable ... ...
-
State v. McCorkendale
...that the jury has found all the facts necessary to support it. 22 Ency. Pl. and Pr. 959 and 960, notes 2 and 3, and cases cited; State v. Craige, 89 N.C. 475 ; Honeycut v. Angel [20 N. C.] 4 Dev. & Bat. (N. [449] 306. 'Under the evidence in this cause, there being no dispute as to the value......
- State v. Kincaid