Tyler v. State

• Decision Date: 15 June 1920
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 714
• Citation: 86 So. 93,17 Ala.App. 495
• Parties: TYLER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

86 So. 93

17 Ala.App. 495

TYLER v. STATE.

8 Div. 714

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 15, 1920

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; C.P. Almon, Judge.

A.C Tyler was indicted and convicted of the offense of buying receiving, or concealing stolen property, and from the judgment he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Nathan & Nathan, of Sheffield, for appellant.

J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

The property alleged to have been stolen consisted of blankets and linen marked "Pullman Company" in such conspicuous way as to be easily seen and read by any person handling the articles. The evidence showed without dispute that the Pullman Company had missing or stolen at Sheffield Ala., the home of defendant, articles similar to the ones found in possession of defendant, which were identified as property belonging to the Pullman Company which had been stolen. It was also shown that the loss of blankets and linen, such as were found in possession of defendant, occurred prior to the finding of the indictment in this case. A witness for the state also testified, without objection, that the articles in evidence, found in the possession of defendant, were the property of the Pullman Company, and that they were stolen. It was also shown that the Pullman Company operated sleeping cars through Sheffield, that the cars sometimes remained in the railroad yard overnight, and at such times were in the custody of the conductors and porters, who had access to the equipment, such as the articles stolen; that the Pullman Company never sold any of its blankets or linen, but, when they became unfit, such articles were destroyed; that this was the rule of the company that had obtained for at least 19 years. It appears from the evidence that the articles were found in defendant's possession in September, 1919, and that he got them in the fall of 1918. The value of the goods were shown to be $35.

To sustain a conviction under this indictment, it must be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was in Colbert county, that it was within three years before the beginning of the prosecution, that the goods were primarily stolen, and that the defendant bought or received them, or concealed or aided in concealing them, with a knowledge that they had been stolen, and without the intent of restoring them to the rightful owner. 34 Cyc. 515; Cohen v. State, 16 Ala.App. 522, 79 So. 621; Martin v. State, 104 Ala. 71, 16 So. 82. All of these necessary ingredients may be, and most of them usually are, shown by circumstantial evidence, from which the jury, using their everyday common sense and observation, must draw their conclusions.

That the crime, if crime it was, was committed in Colbert county is not denied; that it was within three years before the return of the indictment is admitted; that the goods in evidence were stolen, and were the property of the Pullman Company, was testified by the witness Green, without objection. As to the exact date when the property was stolen, it was immaterial, so long as it appears to have been stolen at the time defendant got it, and if stolen, as testified to, it is self-evident that it was before defendant bought it. That the defendant did not intend to return the articles to their true owner is evidenced by the fact that for more than a year he used...