State v. James

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MERRIMON
• Citation: State v. James, 90 N.C. 702 (N.C. 1884)
• Decision Date: 28 February 1884
• Parties: STATE v. BILL J. JAMES.

90 N.C. 702

STATE

v.BILL J. JAMES.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February Term, 1884.

INDICTMENT for larceny tried at Fall Term, 1883, of BEAUFORT Superior Court, before Avery, J.

The defendant is charged with stealing two barrels of pork, the property of A. N. Vail & Son. The indictment was found by the grand jury in Washington county and removed to Beaufort county for trial.

The evidence was, “that a warehouse in which the pork was stored was broken open on Saturday night before the finding of the bill, and the pork taken therefrom; and it was found by witness on the following Tuesday morning in the water, near the bank of the Roanoke river, in the town of Plymouth--one end of each barrel being a little above the water.”“Another witness testified that on Monday night after the alleged larceny the defendant told him that another man (naming him) had thrown some pork overboard into the river, and said to the witness, ‘Let us go down and get it’; that defendant took the witness to a point on the bank of the river, near where the first witness stated he found the pork, and the defendant and the witness felt with poles for a few minutes for the pork, and for some reason the witness left the defendant and went off. There was no other testimony offered.”

The defendant's counsel asked the judge to instruct the jury that there was no evidence to go to the jury of the defendant's guilt, but this was refused. There was a verdict of guilty. The defendant moved for a new trial upon the ground of insufficiency of evidence and the refusal of the court to charge as requested. The motion was overruled, and the defendant appealed from the judgment pronounced.

Attorney-General, for the State .

No counsel for the defendant.

MERRIMON, J.

There was evidence to prove the larceny of the pork by some person, but in our judgment, what the defendant said to the witness did not constitute evidence to go to the jury to prove that he stole the pork, or received the same knowing it to have been stolen.

There was no fact or circumstance with which he had any connection, so far as appears, tending to show his guilt, apart from what he said to, and did in the presence of, the witness. What he said about the pork may have been true; it might be, and was, so far as appears, consistent with his innocence; it did not naturally, necessarily imply his guilt, or guilty knowledge of a larceny. If there had been other facts or circumstances, even slight in their nature, pointing to him as the guilty party, what he said and did might be important; but taken alone it simply creates a suspicion.

It does not appear that he knew of the larceny at the time he talked with the witness, nor that he and the witness discovered the pork when they...