State v. Epps
| Decision Date | 15 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | 653. |
| Citation | 28 S.E.2d 219,223 N.C. 741 |
| Parties | STATE v. EPPS et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The defendants were convicted of the larceny of three hogs, the property of Henry Hunt.
The State's evidence tended to show that Henry Hunt owned three hogs, that he left his home on Monday, October 25 1942, to attend the funeral of his daughter, leaving the hogs running at large about his home; that upon his return to his home the next day, Tuesday evening, he found his hogs had disappeared; that two weeks later the hogs were located at Rowland, where two of them had been sold to Harmonia King and one of them to John Thompson; Harmonia King and John Thompson purchased the hogs from M. W. Epps and Nelson Epps 'although M. W. Epps did the talking and transacted the business'; subsequently two of the hogs were returned to Henry Hunt, but the third one was not so returned as it had been butchered; and the mother of the defendants, in their presence, paid to Henry Hunt $50 to 'compromise the case.'
The defendants' evidence tended to prove that the three hogs of Henry Hunt alleged to have been stolen were running at large, came upon the farm of the defendant, M. W. Epps, and were doing damage to his crops, and after this had been going on for ten or fifteen days, M. W. Epps shut the hogs up for a few days, made inquiry as to whose hogs they were, and not finding this out he carried them to Rowland and sold them to pay for the damage they had done to his crops; that M. W Epps did not know whose property the hogs were when he sold them; that Nelson Epps, while he went with his brother, M. W. Epps, to Rowland when he sold the hogs, did not know for what purpose M. W. Epps was going until he came to Nelson Epps' home to get him to take him to Rowland; that the hogs were sold at Rowland in broad daylight at 2 o'clock P. M.; that when M. W. Epps learned that the hogs belonged to Henry Hunt he returned to Rowland and paid back to Harmonia King and John Thompson what they had paid him for the hogs, procured the return of two of the hogs to Hunt, and paid Hunt for the hog which had been slaughtered and could not be returned; that M. W. Epps lived on his own farm near the farm of Henry Hunt, and Nelson Epps lived on a farm adjoining the farm of M. W. Epps.
The jury returned a verdict as to both of the defendants of guilty of larceny as charged in the bill of indictment, and from judgment of imprisonment predicated on the verdict the defendants appealed assigning error.
J. E. Carpenter, of Lumberton, for appellants.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and George B. Patton and Hughes J. Rhodes, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
While there are other exceptions in the record, only four are set out in the appellants' brief. Those not so set out in their brief are taken as abandoned by the appellants. Rule 28, Rules of Practise in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 562.
Exceptions Nos. 11 and 12 relate to the refusal of the trial judge to sustain the respective motions to dismiss the action and for judgment of nonsuit lodged by each of the defendants when the state had produced its evidence and rested its case. C.S. § 4643. After these motions had been overruled the defendants introduced evidence but did not renew their motions to dismiss the action and for judgment of nonsuit. When the motions were not renewed after all the evidence in the case was concluded the defendants waived their exceptions to the refusal of the motions made at the close of the State's evidence. State v. Chapman, 221 N.C. 157, 19 S.E. 250, and cases there cited.
Exception No. 17, set out in the appellant's brief, is to an excerpt from his honor's charge as follows: 'If Henry Hunt owned the three hogs in question and they were left on his premises by him and they got out, or by some means got from his place over to the premises of the defendant, Matthew Epps, and were on his premises, and Matthew Epps seeing them there and having in his mind the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Braxton
... ... We do not so construe it. But on the contrary, we think the ... instruction gave the essential elements of larceny which ... constitute a felonious intent. State v. Massengill, ... 228 N.C. 612, 46 S.E.2d 713; State v. Cameron, 223 ... N.C. 449, 27 S.E.2d 81; State v. Epps, 223 N.C. 741, ... 28 S.E.2d 219; State v. Holder, 188 N.C. 561, 125 ... S.E.2d 113; 52 C.J.S., Larceny, s 25, page 817 et seq ... Moreover, the Court had defined larceny to be 'the ... felonious or criminal taking and carrying away of the ... personal property of another by force and against ... ...
-
State v. Hamlet
...441 (1972); State v. Foster, 268 N.C. 480, 151 S.E.2d 62 (1966); State v. Turner, 238 N.C. 411, 77 S.E.2d 782 (1953); State v. Epps, 223 N.C. 741, 28 S.E.2d 219 (1943); and (3) the possession was recently after the larceny, mere possession of stolen property being insufficient to raise a pr......
-
State v. Moore
...guilty of larceny as if he had gone in the night time and stolen it secretly. Id. at 563, 125 S.E. at 113-14; see also State v. Epps, 223 N.C. 741, 28 S.E.2d 219 (1943). We must at this point note that the evidence was such that it could permit the jury to find that the property was not sto......