Thompson v. State

• Decision Date: 14 February 1907
• Citation: 43 So. 115,149 Ala. 37
• Parties: THOMPSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

43 So. 115

149 Ala. 37

THOMPSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 14, 1907

Appeal from Law Court, Pike County; A. H. Owens, Judge.

Frank Thompson was convicted of petit larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant was indicted for petit larceny, the taking of a ring of the value of $15. The evidence tended to show that Evelina Bradberry got a ring, which was found by her little granddaughter, and that she had had the same for two or more years; that she had made no secret about having it; that she and her son often wore the ring. The evidence further tended to show that Pomp Bradberry wore the ring to defendant's place of business one night, and defendant asked him to let him see the ring; that he gave the ring to defendant, and on leaving the house defendant was gone, and he failed to ask him for it; that he went back the next night to see defendant about the ring, but did not ask him about it; that the morning after he went to defendant for the ring, and defendant told him that he had lost it off his finger that morning while washing his face and hands, and must have thrown it out with the water. Witness then went to defendant's home, and looked about the washstand and the place where the water was thrown out, but failed to find the ring, and went back and told defendant he could not find it. Defendant then said he must have lost it in the bed. Witness went to defendant's home again, searched the room and the bed with the aid of defendant's wife, and could not find the ring. Witness went back to defendant's place of business and told him he could not find the ring, and asked him to pay for it. Defendant offered him a small sum in payment for the ring, which he declined to accept; and defendant had never paid him anything. Defendant, testifying for himself, stated that Pomp Bradberry pulled off the ring in his place of business and asked him if he could fix the set in the ring. Defendant said he could fix it by sticking it in with a paste he used in fixing the tips on the billiard cues, and that defendant requested him to do so; that he fixed it, and placed the ring on a shelf in his place of business to dry, and never thought any more about the ring until the witness called for it; that he looked for it where he had left it, but could not find it; that a number of people had been in and about his place of business during the day the ring was there, and that he did not know what became of it; that he offered to pay $5 for the loss of the ring but that the owner of the ring wanted $18, which was an exorbitant price for it. The defendant requested the general affirmative charge, which was refused.

D. A Baker, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DENSON J.

A motion was made in the court...