State v. Williams, 217.

• Decision Date: 26 March 1941
• Docket Number: No. 217.,217.
• Citation: 210 N.C. 365,13 S.E.2d 617
• Parties: STATE. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

13 S.E.2d 617

210 N.C. 365

STATE.

v.WILLIAMS.

No. 217.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 26, 1941.

Appeal from Superior Court, Harnett County; W. H. S. Burgwyn, Special Judge.

James Williams was convicted of larceny of goods of the value of less than $20, and he appeals, assigning error.

No error.

Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant, in three counts, (1) with breaking and entering a gin-house, (2) with the larceny of 84 bushels of cotton seed, of the value of thirty dollars, the property of one Henry Elliott, and (3) with receiving said cotton seed, knowing them to have been feloniously stolen or taken in violation of C.S. § 4250.

It is in evidence that Henry Elliott had a quantity of cotton seed in sacks stored in his gin-house. The sacks were fastened or tied with wires. They began to disappear on 23 November, 1940, and continued to disappear from time to time until 13 December, 1940, when all were gone.

On the morning of 16 December, 1940, Elliott saw four sacks of seed which had been taken from his gin at Casper Tart's gin. Tart testified that he purchased the sacks full of seed from the defendant. He also testified that he had bought cotton seed from the defendant on several occasions during the time Elliott's sacks were disappearing. Checks showing payments to Williams by Tart covering these purchases were offered in evidence, and endorsements by Williams duly identified.

The defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence, which was overruled. Exception. The case was thereupon submitted to the jury on the State's evidence, the defendant offering none.

Verdict: "Guilty of larceny of goods of the value of less than twenty dollars".

Judgment: Nine months on the roads.

The defendant appeals, assigning errors.

Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and G. B. Patton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Neill McK. Salmon, of Lillington, for defendant.

STACY, Chief Justice.

The record discloses that Elliott's cotton seed began to disappear from his gin-house on 23 November and continued to disappear from time to time for several weeks thereafter. Tart made a number ofpurchases of cotton seed from the defendant during this period. Elliott identified four of the sacks of seed which the defendant sold to Tart as belonging to him. This is some evidence tending to connect the defendant with the theft and permitting the inference that he participated therein as a principal. State v. Williams, 187 N.C. 492, 122 S.E. 13; State v. Hullen, 133 N.C. 656, 45 S.E. 513; State v. McRae, 120 N.C. 608, 27 S.E. 78, 58 Am.St.Rep. 808.

[2, 3] It is very generally held that the recent possession of stolen property is a circumstance tending to show the larceny thereof by the possessor (State v. Best, 202 N.C. 9, 161 S.E. 535), or that it raises a presumption of fact (State v. Anderson, 162 N.C. 571, 77 S.E. 238), or a presumption of law (State v. Graves, 72 N. C. 482) of such guilt. State v. Jones, 20 N.C. 120; State v. Turner, 65 N.C. 592; State v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 470; State v. Rights, 82 N.C. 675. The case put by Hale, where a horse thief was pursued, finding himself pressed, got down, desiring a man in the road to hold his horse till he returned, and the innocent man was taken with the horse, illustrates the necessity of using caution in convictions founded on presumptive evidence. State v. Adams, 2 N.C. 463. See State v. Cannon, 218 N.C. 466, 11 S.E.2d 301. This was explained to the jury, the court stating that the strength of the presumption would depend upon the circumstances of the case and the length of time intervening between the larceny of the goods and their discovery in the possession...