State v. Stone
| Decision Date | 31 October 1878 |
| Citation | 68 Mo. 101 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. STONE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court.--HON. JOS. CRAVENS, Judge.
John T. Teel for appellant.
J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.
Defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Lawrence county, in November, 1877, for grand larceny. He was put upon his trial, which resulted in his conviction, and the assessment of his punishment to imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years. Motions for new trial and in arrest having been overruled, the cause is brought here by appeal. On the trial the State gave to the jury evidence tending to show that the defendant, on or about the 23rd day of August 1877, in Lawrence county, borrowed of three of his neighbors, a wagon, horse and mare, with which to haul some oats to Mt. Vernon, the county seat of said county. The defendant, after getting said wagon and team in his possession, did haul his oats to Mt. Vernon, and then sold the same and received the purchase money, and, instead of returning said property to the several owners at the time he had promised, drove the wagon and team in another direction. He was arrested in possession of the team and wagon when about to cross the Missouri river at Washington, Franklin county, Missouri. He denied his name when arrested. To one person whom he passed on his route from Lawrence county to Washington, Missouri, he told that he was on his way to Indiana, and to another that he was going to another place. He stated, when arrested, that he was from Dade county, in this State.
Various objections to the proceedings of the trial court have been brought to our notice in the brief of counsel, the most material of which is its action in refusing, on defendant's motion, to instruct the jury to the effect that before they could find defendant guilty of the charge in the indictment, they must believe, from the evidence, that defendant received the possession of the property therein mentioned, with the intention, at the time, of stealing the same, and that although they might believe that defendant borrowed the wagon and team to haul off his oats, they would acquit, provided they further believed that the design to steal and convert the same was not formed till after he had thus obtained possession. The indictment is founded on Wag. Stat., sec. 25, p. 456, and the action of the court in refusing this declaration of law brings up the question whether, under such an indictment, a conviction can be had for the offense defined in Wag. Stat., sec. 37, p. 459, which is as follows: “If any carrier or bailee shall embezzle, or convert to his own use, or make way with, or secrete, with intent to embezzle or convert to his own use, any money, goods, rights in action, property or any valuable security or other effects which shall have been delivered to him, or shall have come into his possession or under his care, as such bailee, although he shall not break any trunk, package, box or other thing in which he received them, he shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of larceny, and punished in the manner prescribed by law for stealing property of the nature or value of the article so embezzled, taken or secreted.”
An indictment under section 25, supra, can only be maintained when the State shows an intent on the part of the party charged to steal the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Turley
...court said there was no larceny unless felonious intent existed at the time of the borrowing. In accord with the Fulton case are: State v. Stone, 68 Mo. 101 (horse, mare, and wagon borrowed to haul oats to Mt. Vernon and return; after carting oats to Mt. Vernon, defendant kept on going); St......
-
State v. Brown
...v. Nelson, 56 Cal. 77. (2) Larceny is characterized by a felonious intent. State v. Ware, 62 Mo. 597; State v. Shermer, 55 Mo. 83; State v. Stone, 68 Mo. 101. (3) Therefore, in robbery, the taking must be with an to appropriate the property as in larceny, with animo furandi. People v. Keefe......
-
State v. Terry
... ... the substance of its material averments, without ... impinging upon constitutional guaranties. State v ... [109 Mo. 615] Meyers , 99 Mo. 116. See also as to the ... nature and cause of the accusation State v ... Arter , 65 Mo. 653, 656; State v. Stone , 68 Mo ... 101; State v. Gabriel , 88 Mo. 631 ... Following ... the general language of the ... [19 S.W. 210] ... statute will not answer, only in those instances where ... all the facts which constitute the offense ... are set forth in the statute itself , ... ...
-
State v. Harmon
...Huntsman v. State, 12 Texas App. 619, and citations. The constitutional question is thoroughly considered in the above case. State v. Stone, 68 Mo. 101; State Gabriel, 88 Mo. 631. In State v. Broderick, 70 Mo. 622, the question of the constitutionality of the statute was not presented, but ......