Trotter v. Commonwealth
| Citation | 169 Ky. 551 |
| Parties | Trotter v. Commonwealth. |
| Decision Date | 19 April 1916 |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Campbell Circuit Court.
HOWARD M. BENTON for appellant.
LAWRENCE J. DISKEN, M. M. LOGAN, Attorney General, and OVERTON S. HOGAN, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted in the Campbell circuit court charged with horse stealing, and upon his trial was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than three years, and from this judgment he has appealed.
The evidence shows that the prosecuting witness, McKenney, in September, 1915, was the owner of a small fruit store in Ft. Thomas, Kentucky, and a horse, wagon and harness which he used in that business; that on the 13th day of September he entered into a contract of sale with one Moore by which Moore was to pay him $100.00 for the business and the horse, wagon and harness, $25.00 to be paid down and the balance in installments of $5.00 per week. But the trade with McKenney was only a tentative one, and Moore was to take the business on trial for a week and determine at the end of that time whether he would conclude the trade. The next day after the trade between McKenney and Moore, and after the business, horse, wagon and harness had been turned over to him, Moore took the appellant Trotter into partnership with him in the venture and turned over the store, horse, wagon and harness to Trotter. Moore went off and during the week was engaged in another occupation, Trotter remaining in custody of the store and the other property, including the horse, and during that week conducted the store and drove the horse. On the following Saturday night Moore concluded that he would not enter into the deal with McKenney, and that night went to McKenney and told him that he would not carry out the trade, but told him that Trotter would take the store, and talked to McKenney about the contemplated deal with Trotter. Prior to that time, however, and when the deal was first made between McKenney and Moore, and after McKenney had taken Trotter into partnership with him, and had turned over the store and horse and wagon to Trotter, the latter took the horse, removed it from the stable where McKenney had kept it to another stable rented by him for the purpose, and bought feed and cared for the horse.
On the Sunday morning after Moore had notified McKenney that he would not enter into the deal, and constructively, as he testifies, turned back to McKenney the possession of the store and the horse, which were then both in the custody of Trotter, McKenney and Trotter entered into an agreement by the terms of which, as testified to by McKenney and his wife, Trotter...
To continue reading
Request your trial