State v. Hill

• Decision Date: 26 November 1888
• Citation: State v. Hill, 10 S.W. 28, 96 Mo. 357 (Mo. 1888)
• Parties: STATE v. HILL.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

10 S.W. 28

96 Mo. 357

STATE v.HILL.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 26, 1888.

1. CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE OF VENUE.

On trial for larceny of mules, testimony of the owner that at the time they were stolen he lived in S. county, that he had been plowing with them, that he took them from the plow and put them into the barn about sundown, and that between that time and 11 o'clock at night they were stolen from the barn, warrants the inference that the barn was in S. county, where the venue was laid.

2. LARCENY — WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE — DESCRIPTION OF STOLEN PROPERTY.

The witnesses differed in minor particulars as to the correspondence in description of the mules stolen and those which defendant sold, but they all agreed as to a very peculiarly shaped brand which was on one of the mules stolen, and also on one of those sold. Held, that an instruction was warranted submitting the question of identity to the jury under a caution as to reasonable doubt.

Appeal from criminal court, Saline county; JOHN E. RYLAND, Judge.

Defendant, Willis Hill, was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.

Boyd & Sebree, for appellant.B. G. Boone, Atty. Gen., and Alf.F. Rector, for the State.

BRACE, J.

At the September term, 1887, of the criminal court of Saline countythe defendant was convicted of grand larceny on an indictment charging him with having stolen a pair of black mare mules from one John J. Hardin, in said county.An examination of the record discloses that the case was in its details well tried, and the only ground urged by counsel here for a reversal is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence; and defendant's demurrer thereto, and his instruction to acquit, should have been given.The first defect pointed out is the alleged failure by the state to prove the venue as laid in Saline county.

1.Hardin, the owner of the mules, testified that at the time the mules were stolen he was living in Saline county, Mo., northwest of Slater; that the weather was fair, and that he had been plowing with the mules; that they were taken right from the plow and put into the barn about sundown; and that between that time and 11 o'clock that night they were stolen from the barn.From this evidence the jury might reasonably infer that the barn was in Saline county.It is not necessary that the venue be proved by direct and positive evidence.It is sufficient if it can be reasonably inferred from the facts and circumstances proven.State v. Burns,48 Mo. 438.

2.It was satisfactorily proven by the state that the mules were stolen on the night of the 18th of May, in Saline county, between sundown and dark; that they were the property of Hardin, as charged in the indictment; that on Sunday, the 29th of May, the defendant came to a wagon-yard on Twelfth and Olive streets, in the city of St. Louis, in a buggy hitched to a span of black mare mules answering the description as to sex, age, size, form, color, and as to a mark on one, and a brand on the other, of the mules stolen; that he stayed there with the mules until the evening of the 30th, when he sold the mules to a man named Julian, who afterwards sold them to a man named Hill, who took them to St. Paul, after which no trace of the mules was found; that the defendant asked $235, but took $175, for them; that upon the same day he sold the mules he...