State v. Saunders

• Decision Date: 07 July 1898
• Citation: 30 S.E. 616,52 S.C. 580
• Parties: STATE. v. SAUNDERS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

30 S.E. 616

52 S.C. 580

STATE.

v.SAUNDERS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 7, 1898.

Larceny—Master and Servant—Sharing Crops —Partnership—Title to Crops—Directing Verdict.

1. In a prosecution for larceny, where a witness would not deny stating to W. that defendant, at a certain place, the day after the theft, had showed to him certain money, but did deny that defendant ever had showed him such money, it was not error to permit W. to testify that the witness did so state to him, in order to test the former's credibility.

2. A verbal contract, by which one agrees to work for a portion of the crop raised, is not a contract of partnership, so as to make him a joint owner of the crop with the landlord, within the statutory provision applicable when the contract is in writing.

3. Under the common law, a master may contract orally with a servant to pay him for his services by a part of the crop, and such power exists independently of the statutory power to contract for such service in writing.

4. An oral contract to pay a servant by giving him a certain portion of the crop raised gives the servant no title to the crop before its division, and hence, if he takes any part prior to the division, with intent to steal, he is guilty of larceny.

5. A circuit judge cannot direct a verdict in a criminal case.

Appeal from general sessions circuit court of Abbeville county.

Isaac Saunders was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Graydon & Graydon, for appellant.

M. P. Ansel, for the State.

POPE, J. Isaac Saunders, having been convicted of grand larceny, and duly sentenced therefor, has appealed from said judgment.

The first question raised by the appeal relates to the ruling made by the circuit judge when the defendant's attorney objected to the testimony of the prosecution in relation to the statement made by Sam Pace, the day after the defendant was arrested, to the prosecutor, that he (Sam Pace) saw the defendant, Isaac Saunders, at Donald's on the 28th October, 1897, and that said Saunders showed to him $28, —two $10 bills, one $5 bill, and $3 in silver. While Sam Pace, the witness, was on the stand, the solicitor pressed the inquiry upon the witness as to such statement made to Mr. Winn in the presence of Jim Knight. The witness would not deny the statement attributed to him, but when the defendant's attorney examined him the witness stated that he had not seen Isaac Saunders have any money at Donald's on the day in question. Therefore we think, when Mr. Winn was called to the witness stand, it was competent for him to testify as to what Sam Pace told him in regard to the money Isaac Saunders had in his possession at Donald's on the day in question, for it thus became necessary to test Sam Pace's credibility. State v. Sullivan (S. C.) 21 S. E. 6.

The next question is, did the circuit judge err when he refused to charge "that under the laws of this state a verbal contract by which a person agrees to work for a portion of the crop is a contract of partnership, and makes such person a joint owner of the crop with the landlord"? The contract between Mr. Winn, the landlord, and the laborer, the appellant, was a verbal contract. There is no evidence that either party to it desired it to be reduced to writing. If the contract had been in writing, then our statutory provisions governing such cases would have prevailed. But this court, in Daniel v. Swearengen, 6 S. C. 297, held that under the common law it was perfectly legal to...