State v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 16 July 1907
• Citation: 57 S.E. 1098,77 S.C. 383
• Parties: STATE v. HAMILTON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

57 S.E. 1098

77 S.C. 383

STATE v. HAMILTON.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 16, 1907

Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Pickens County.

Samuel Hamilton was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Reversed.

Blythe & Blythe, for appellant. Julius E. Boggs, for the State.

WOODS J.

The defendant was convicted under an indictment charging him with larceny of ""thirty-five dollars good and lawful money of the United States, a further description to the jurors unknown, one gold watch and necklace, all of the value of $100, of the proper goods and chattels of W. R. Wyatt and his wife, Addie Wyatt, then and there being found in his dwelling house." This was manifestly an allegation of joint ownership in husband and wife. The only evidence of ownership was that of W. R. Wyatt who testified the money was his property and the gold watch chain, and necklace the property of his wife.

1. Proof of separate ownership in each of those alleged to be joint owners of several articles will not sustain an indictment charging joint ownership. State v. Ryan, 4 McCord, 16, 17 Am. Dec. 702; State v. Dwyre, 2 Hill, 287. Conversely, when the indictment alleged ownership in A., and proof is of ownership in A. and others the defendant was held entitled to an acquittal. State v London, 3 S. C. 230. No doubt, under section 58 of the Criminal Code, the court could have allowed the indictment to be amended to conform to the proof, as the amendment would not have changed the nature of the offense charged. But no such amendment was asked for, and the cause cannot be considered as if the indictment had been amended. In State v. Council, 58 S.C. 369, 36 S.E. 663, it was held an acquittal of stealing the fowls of A. could not be set up as a former jeopardy against an indictment charging the defendant with stealing the fowls of A.'s wife. Considering that case in connection with those above cited, it is clear that, if the defendant had been acquitted under this indictment charging theft of the money, watch, chain, and necklace, the joint property of Wyatt and his wife, the acquittal would not avail him at trials under separate indictments charging the larceny of the money, the property of W. R. Wyatt, and the watch, chain, and necklace, the property of Addie Wyatt. His illegal conviction under the indictment now under consideration would be equally unavailing to support a plea of former jeopardy against such separate...