Warford v. State

Decision Date19 December 1927
Docket Number80
Citation1 S.W.2d 23,175 Ark. 878
PartiesWARFORD v. STATE
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court; J. S. Maples, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

H W. Applegate, Attorney General, and Darden Moose, Assistant, for appellee.

OPINION

KIRBY J.

This appeal comes from a conviction for grand larceny upon an indictment returned by the grand jury of Madison County charging appellant with the crimes of burglary and grand larceny.

No brief has been filed for appellant.

The testimony shows that the store of Nolen Pool, at Delaney, Arkansas, was broken into and merchandise of the value of more than $ 10 taken therefrom; that the appellant was operating a little restaurant, where he served short orders, adjoining the store. Goods of considerable value had been missed from time to time, as taken out between the closing of the store at night and the opening in the morning, and appellant was suspected as having taken them.

A witness, one of the clerks, had seen a car drive up in front of the store, while he was standing in the door with his wife, and noticed appellant come out to the car with a bundle or something in a sack, which he put in the bottom of the car. He knew the lady driver, and received information that the stuff he had seen put in the car had been taken out of the store. They began to watch the store, and, on Christman Eve, witness, with his wife, when the other watchers came out of the store, talked a little while with them, and went to the store to get some candy and some things to put in the boy's stockings, and found a man in the store, who ran into the side room and slammed the door. Witness was scared, and went back to his house, which was about 15 or 20 steps from the store, and stood inside of the door until the man came out of the store, and he recognized him to be Pete Warford, the appellant. He came out of the back door and turned straight to the left, and went over the palings between two buildings, in direction of Waxford's place. They told the proprietor, and the next day the officers came out and arrested Warford. He was brought to witness' house, and admitted to him and Mr. Guinn, the sheriff, that he had been in the store about three times, and asked that they be as light on him as they could.

The sack that Warford had put in the car had overalls and jumpers in it that belonged to the store, and witness did not know how many had been taken, but only the number recovered. Warford's children had on two small pairs of overalls and jumpers when he was arrested. Warford was with the children.

After appellant was bound over, he inquired if he could pay enough to satisfy the owners of the goods and have the matter kept out of court, and was told that, so far as they were concerned, it would be settled, and he paid $ 500 and was given two receipts therefor, one for $ 75 and the other for $ 425, which he produced in evidence.

This witness stated that the stock carried was of the value of three or four thousand dollars, and that he had been in sole charge of the store, as the clerk of Mr. Pool. Thought that the store had lost somewhere between seven and nine thousand dollars in goods taken in the last eight years. This witness stated that a considerable amount of goods had been missed on another occasion, shortly before appellant was arrested, and that he did not know when the goods described in the indictment were stolen nor how much at a time.

Other witnesses stated that they had found some of the goods, the overalls and jumpers, at Jim Warford's, where appellant boarded, and some at George Walker's, which had been bought from appellant and given to his father by Leonard Walker, and also some at Sanford Warford's, the father of appellant.

The night after appellant was arrested, he told two or three people that he had been in the store two or three times and had got goods each time, and also stated that he guessed he was gone.

The sheriff testified about the recovery of the goods that were identified as the property of Nolen Pool, the owner of the store. Another witness, and also the deputy prosecuting attorney, stated that they had had a conversation with Warford at Mr. Faubus', the clerk's house, and that he stated he had gone into the store at the window, and was by himself, and the last time he went into the store was when Mr. Faubus claimed he saw him coming out, and that he did not get anything that time, but got all the stuff at other times shortly before.

Stewart, a deputy sheriff, testified about finding some of the stuff, and, before they put Warford in the car, he asked witness to use what influence he had to help him get out of the trouble as lightly as possible, telling him at the time that he figured he was in bad, and needed assistance.

Defendant testified that he was running a restaurant at Delaney, where he had lived for 43 years, and had not been arrested before. That he went to the store about 2 o'clock and bought a jumper and overalls, and, when he bought them, some one called him to the door, and he told Al he would be back and settle with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Collins v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 8 Julio 1940
    ... ... 17; Monk v ... State, 130 Ark. 358, 197 S.W. 580; Speer v ... State, 130 Ark. 457, 198 S.W. 113; Holden ... v. State, 156 Ark. 521, 247 S.W. 768; ... Bohannon v. State, 160 Ark. 431, 254 S.W ... 683; Yelvington v. State, 169 Ark. 359, 275 ... S.W. 701; Warford ... ...
  • Collins v. State, 4177.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 8 Julio 1940
    ...Ark. 521, 247 S.W. 768; Bohannon v. State, 160 Ark. 431, 254 S.W. 683; Yelvington v. State, 169 Ark. 359, 275 S.W. 701; Warford v. State, 175 Ark. 878, 1 S.W.2d 23; McCauley v. State, 177 Ark. 1031, 9 S.W.2d 7. Nash v. State, 73 Ark. 399, 84 S.W. 497. ...
  • Davis v. State, 101.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 1930
    ...149 Ark. 616, 233 S. W. 779; Hall v. State, 161 Ark. 453, 257 S. W. 61; Stone v. State, 162 Ark. 154, 258 S. W. 116; Warford v. State, 175 Ark. 878, 1 S.W.(2d) 23. In the trial of appellant Davis, it was not contended that he was not present at the time of the killing of Mr. Weed, and the t......
  • Gulley v. State
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 7 Octubre 1966
    ...crime within the grade of offense with which accused is charged.' Among cases cited for this general statement is that of Warford v. State, 175 Ark. 878, 1 S.W.2d 23, where that court held that no error was committed in proving that more goods were stolen than had been charged in the indict......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT