State v. Lawn

• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Citation: 80 Mo. 241
• Parties: THE STATE v. LAWN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

80 Mo. 241

THE STATE

v.LAWN, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1883.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.--HON. J. L. THOMAS Judge.

AFFIRMED

Dinning & Byrns and McMullin for appellant.

D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.

The term “cattle” is generic and includes the statutory term “neat cattle.” R. S, § 1307. A steer belongs to the class “neat cattle,” and courts will take judicial notice of that fact. State v. Hambleton, 22 Mo. 452. It would have been sufficient to use the word “steer,” without any other designation. State v. Lange, 22 Tex. 591; State v. Abbott, 20 Vt. 537. Where the statute makes the stealing of specific property grand larceny, the value need not be laid in the indictment. State v. Daniels, 32 Mo. 558.

MARTIN, C.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for stealing a steer His punishment was assessed at two years in the penentiary. Upon taking his appeal, he made application in the Supreme Court for stay of execution, filing in support of it a statement and brief, in which he endeavored to disclose many errors committed against him in the trial. Upon consideration of his statement and brief, his application for a stay of execution was denied. No further brief or statement has been submitted in the prosecution of his appea. I will notice the material objections urged by him in his original brief, for the purpose of determining whether the record presents any good ground for reversing the judgment.

It is objected that the indictment is insufficient, in failing to allege the value of the steer, so as to bring the charge within the statute defining grand larceny. The indictment reads that, “Frank Lawn * * certain cattle to-wit, one steer of the property and chattels of James Duff, then and there being found, then and there did feloniously steal, take and carry away.” The statute which makes the felonious taking of this species of property grand larceny, without regard to value, uses the term “neat cattle.” R. S. § 1307. It is argued that the indictment to be good under this section, ought to have charged the taking and carrying away of “neat cattle.” I do not think this objection is well taken. The term cattle designates domestic quadrupeds collectively, and has been held to include horses, sheep and swine as well as animals of the bovine species. But the term “neat cattle” includes only cattle of the bovine species. A steer belongs to the class “neat cattle.” And as the defendant was indicted for stealing a steer, he was sufficiently informed of the crime charged. He could not assume that he was being prosecuted for stealing any other class of cattle than the class of “neat cattle,” to which the steer belongs. I think it would have been sufficient to use the word steer without employing the term “cattle” or “neat cattle.” State v. Hambleton, 22 Mo. 452; State v. Large, 22 Tex. 591; State v. Abbott, 20 Vt. 537; State v. Daniels, 3 Mo. 558.

The court gave an instruction to the effect that recent possession of stolen property is in presumption of law guilty possession in the absence of any explanation leading to a different inference. It is not claimed that the instruction announced anything erroneous in law, but that there was no evidence of recent possession of the stolen property to justify ...