State v. Willis

• Decision Date: 25 March 1931
• Docket Number: 30936
• Citation: 37 S.W.2d 407
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIS
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 S.W.2d 407

STATE v. WILLIS

No. 30936

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

March 25, 1931

Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen., and Ray Weightman, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS C.

In a verified information filed in the circuit court of Howell county by the prosecuting attorney, defendant was charged with the larceny of neat cattle, to wit, one steer of the value of $ 40. Tried to a jury, he was found guilty, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of two years. He appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict.

The evidence submitted by the state warrants the finding that on or about October 8, 1928, one W. R. Vearcamp was the owner of about forty-eight head of neat cattle, which were pastured in defendant's pasture, in Howell county. On said day defendant attended a sale near Pottersville. Clyde and Arthur McKee, brothers, also attended said sale and conversed with defendant. Defendant first approached Arthur McKee with respect to a sale, but Arthur informed him that he did not desire to buy cattle, and suggested that he see his brother Clyde. Upon accosting him, Clyde informed defendant that he was short of money, and thereupon Arthur agreed to advance it. Then defendant and Clyde proceeded in a truck to the pasture north of Blue Mound where Vearcamp's cattle were kept. Defendant rounded out a certain steer from the herd owned by Vearcamp, and sold it for $ 20 to Clyde McKee, who put the steer in his truck and hauled it to his place, where a week or ten days later Vearcamp recovered it. Defendant told Clyde that he owned the steer and that it would be necessary to get the steer that night as he had other work to do the next day.

Bill Walker observed them approach in the truck, which they parked amid sprouts a short distance from the road, although the truck was easily seen from the road. Walker saw them as they were rounding up the cattle in the pasture, but left before the steer was taken to get an officer. Officer Bridges met and conversed with defendant a day or so later, but did not then arrest him. Subsequently, he went to defendant's home to arrest him, but he said that noise was all he saw or heard. He made several trips to defendant's home, but was unable to apprehend him for about five months.

Vearcamp owed defendant $ 25 for pasture rent, but it appears that Walker, prior to the taking and selling of the steer pursuant to instructions from Vearcamp, paid defendant this pasture rent.

A letter, to which Vearcamp admitted that his signature was appended, purporting to give defendant authority to sell the steer and apply the proceeds to the pasture rent, was admitted in evidence, but Vearcamp testified that a change was made in the verbiage, that the handwriting purporting to give such authority was different. A banker testified, in effect, that parts of said letter were erased and words inserted, and that said letter was forged. Vearcamp denied that he gave defendant authority to sell the steer and so apply the proceeds.

Defendant did not testify. His evidence tended to show, by several witnesses and statements, that, by letter, Vearcamp authorized him to sell the steer and apply the proceeds on the pasture rent. Others testified that they heard Vearcamp say that he would bet all his cattle on the election except one, and that one belonged to defendant for a pasture bill. Two or three witnesses stated that a certain conversation between Vearcamp and defendant occurred a few nights previous to the trial, in which Vearcamp admitted that he had written defendant a letter authorizing him to get the steer.

In rebuttal, Vearcamp denied that he had such a conversation with defendant, or that the meeting occurred, or that he made the admissions. While he admitted that the signature to the letter, written while he was in Kansas, was his signature, he denied that the letter originally contained the purported authority to defendant to sell the steer and apply the proceeds to pasture rent.

I. We are without the benefit of a brief from defendant. Consequently, we have carefully looked over the record proper as well as the whole record. An examination of the record proper shows that no error is present. The information is in the usual form and presents sufficiently the offense of...