State v. Pannil

• Decision Date: 02 November 1921
• Docket Number: 346.
• Citation: 109 S.E. 1,182 N.C. 838
• Parties: STATE v. PANNIL ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

109 S.E. 1

182 N.C. 838

STATE v. PANNIL ET AL.

No. 346.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 2, 1921

Appeal from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Webb, Judge.

William Reid Pannil, Garland Watt, and Chas. W. Currie were convicted of larceny, and they appeal. No error.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction of larceny.

The defendants were convicted of larceny of a large quantity of oats, the property of Nello Teer, and from the judgment upon such conviction appealed to this court.

Exceptions 7 and 9 were directed to the judge's refusal to give judgment as of nonsuit at the conclusion of the state's evidence, and again at the conclusion of all the evidence.

The prosecuting witness, Nello Teer, was a contractor working upon the public roads of Rockingham county, and owning a number of mules and horses used in this work. He kept a warehouse in the town of Reidsville, in which he stored a large quantity of oats and sweet feed for his stock, and had missed oats for some time, about 300 bushels. Besides the ordinary fastenings, he nailed up the windows to the warehouse and put a bar across the door. On the night of December 11, 1920, the warehouse was broken into, and 14 5-bushel bags of oats were taken out. About 7 o'clock next morning, he discovered the loss, and secured two policemen of the town to accompany him with a search warrant in his attempt to follow the trail of the thief, or thieves. A one-horse wagon had been backed up to the platform, and though it had rained the night of the theft, they followed the track of this wagon along a devious course, and first to the barn of the defendant Currie. There they found a box of oats, and certain sweet feed bags which had Teer's name on them. The box of oats contained 10 or 15 bushels, and empty bags were hanging up on a wire across the corner of the feed room. There were a dozen or more sweet feed bags with Teer's name upon them, and 8 or more oat bags with his stock number on them. His stock number was z--72, the 72 indicating the grade of the oats and the z, it is contended the point to which they were shipped. The wagon track was then followed from Currie's barn to the barn in which the other two defendants kept their horses. All of the defendants ran drays in the town of Reidsville. He found in Garland Watt's feed room three full bags and one half full of oats. The bags had the stock number z--72 on them. In another department in the barn, there was a box that had 10 bushels or more of oats in it. Several empty bags were found on that box, which contained also the stock number. He saw Garland Watt's horse after Garland was arrested, observed the horse's track, and it was very much like the track made by the horse attached to the wagon, "So much like it, that I thought it was the same track made by the shoe."

The defendant Pannil occupied one of the departments of a barn in which Garland Watt had another. There were 10 or 12 bushels of these oats in Will Pannil's department. Will's father, Tom Pannil, and another man had horses in this barn also. None of the defendants had worked for Teer and he had sold no oats or sweet feed to any of them. When his oat bags were emptied, he bundled them up and shipped them to T. A. Jennings & Sons, Lynchburg, Va.

The defendants claimed that they had bought these oats from one Will, or Brer, Garland. The defendant Currie testified that Will Garland sold him 2 bags of sweet feed at $2.50 a bag. He did not see Will Garland any more, but when he went in the barn the morning of the search the barn was filled with the oats, and the sacks were hanging where he had other sacks hung. He knew that the price of sweet feed on the market was from $3.40 to $3.60. He did not pay Will Garland for oats or sweet feed. Garland Watt claims that he bought 2 bags of sweet feed and 1 bag of oats from Will Garland on the same day that Currie claimed to have bought his. For the 3 bags he was to pay Will Garland $7.50. The oats were put in his barn that night, without his knowledge. Will Pannil also claimed to have bought 2 bags of oats, at $2.50 a bag, from Will Garland, and found them in the barn the next morning, the morning of the search, when he went to feed. He did not pay Will Garland for them. It seems from the testimony that Will Garland had disappeared. Defendants appealed from the judgment upon the verdict of guilty.

J. M Sharp and J. R. Joyce, both of Reidsville, for appellants.

James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER, J. (after stating the facts as above).

If we follow the rule that only the state's testimony, with so much of the defendant's sustaining it, is to be considered, on a motion for judgment as of nonsuit, we are of the opinion that the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the motion for a nonsuit was properly overruled.

Exception 1 was directed to the judge's refusal to sever the trials of the three defendants. This, however, was in the sound discretion of the court. State v. Southerland, 178 N.C. 676, 100 S.E. 187, where it was said to have been frequently held that a motion for a separate trial of defendants charged in the same bill of indictment is a matter that must necessarily be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. To undertake to review such rulings is impracticable, and would result in great delay in the disposition of criminal actions. It is only when there appears to have been an abuse of such discretion that this court will entertain such exceptions and review the rulings of the trial judge. Nothing of that nature appears in this record, citing State v. Dixon, 78 N.C. 558; State v. Parish, 104 N.C. 689, 10 S.E. 457; State v. Hastings, 86 N.C. 597; State v. Haney, 19 N.C. 390; State v. Murphy, 84 N.C. 742. See, also, State v. Finley, 118 N.C. 1161, 24 S.E. 495; State v. Oxendine, 107 N.C. 783, 12 S.E. 573; State v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 997. There was manifestly no abuse of discretion by the judge.

Exceptions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8, were directed to the testimony as to the sweet feed lost and the sweet feed bags with Teer's name or number on them in the barns of defendants. This evidence, however, tended to show knowledge and intent upon both the counts in the bill of indictment. The court has recently discussed this question very fully in State v. Simons, 178 N.C. 679, 100 S.E. 239, and in State v. Stancill, 178 N.C. 683, 100 S.E. 241, citing all the cases. It was held in State v. Adams, 138 N.C. 693, 50 S.E. 767:

"True it is that evidence as to one offense is not admissible against a defendant to prove that he is also guilty of another and distinct crime, the two having no relation to or connection with each other. But there are well-defined exceptions to this rule. Proof of another offense is competent to show identity, intent or scienter, and for other purposes"--citing State v. Murphy, 84 N.C. 742; State v. Parish, 104 N.C. 692, 10 S.E. 457; State v. Weaver, 104 N.C. 761, 10 S.E. 486; State v. Walton, 114 N.C. 783, 18 S.E. 945 and State v. Graham, 121 N.C. 623, 28 S.E. 409.

So in State v. Stancill, 178 N.C. 686, 100 S.E. 241, where there is a full discussion of the subject, with citation of the authorities, it is said there, at least substantially,...