Williams v. State

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: DE GRAFFENRIED, J.
• Citation: Williams v. State, 5 Ala.App. 112, 59 So. 528 (Ala. App. 1912)
• Decision Date: 19 June 1912
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.

59 So. 528

5 Ala.App. 112

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 19, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; M. Sollie, Judge.

Alex Williams was convicted of the larceny of property valued at less than $25, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J. E. Z. Riley, of Ozark, for appellant.

R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

The defendant was indicted for the larceny of 400 pounds of seed cotton, the property of James Teal, of the value of less than $25. He was tried and convicted by a jury.

1. Larceny is an offense against the possession. As Teal was in the possession of the cotton when it was stolen--if, in fact it was stolen--the indictment properly laid the ownership of the cotton in him.

2. While the question as to whether Teal actually lost any seed cotton (i. e., whether any cotton was in fact stolen from Teal) was a disputed question, the fact that the defendant was in the possession of seed cotton under such circumstances as indicated that he had stolen it from some one was undisputed. He was admittedly in possession of seed cotton at night, and was seen traveling with it, at night, in his wagon. He admitted that he, after he ascertained that he was known to be in possession of the cotton, carried it to a man named McLeod; that he told McLeod that the cotton belonged to him (McLeod); that he knew that when he made this statement to McLeod he was telling an untruth; and that McLeod refused to receive or have anything to do with the cotton. He further admitted that he was living, at the time of the alleged larceny, on the plantation of a man named Hughes; and that he made a crop of cotton on Hughes' place that year. His defense was that the cotton which was seen in his possession was not stolen from Teal but was the cotton of Hughes; that he had raised the cotton that year on Hughes' place; that he was, when seen in possession of the cotton, on the way to Ozark with it, for the purpose of selling it for his own benefit, without the knowledge or consent of Hughes; and that, being seen by a son of Hughes in possession of the cotton, and realizing that he had gotten himself into trouble about it, he took it to Hughes and delivered it to him.

While the state was developing its case, a witness, Phillips testified to certain damaging statements which the defendant had made to him about the cotton. This witness, against the objection of the defendant, was permitted to testify that in the conversation in which the said statements were made the defendant told him that "Hughes took him off there at Skippersville and told him the cotton was his [Hughes'], and to turn it over to him, and he would not hurt him," and that thereupon he turned the cotton over to Hughes. We think the above testimony was relevant and material. It was a voluntary statement, made by the defendant to the witness, relative to the cotton, the subject of the alleged larceny, and tended to show that the possession of it by the defendant was not innocent, and that he delivered it to Hughes for the purpose of fabricating a defense to the present indictment.

3. While evidence merely tending to show that the cotton found in the possession of the defendant was of the same general appearance and texture as the cotton remaining in the cotton house from which the cotton is alleged to have been stolen was, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, of no value, the defendant, without objection, permitted the state to introduce evidence tending to show this fact. Buchanan v. State, 109 Ala. 7, 19 So. 410; Crane v. State, 111 Ala. 45, 20 So. 590.

A witness, Phillips, however, testified that, in his judgment, the cotton in the possession of the defendant i. e., the cotton in the box in Payne's store, was the stolen cotton. This witness by his testimony showed, if he testified truthfully, sufficient knowledge as an expert in...