Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 13 October 1941
• Docket Number: No. 4221.,4221.
• Citation: 154 S.W.2d 809
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 809

154 S.W.2d 809

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 4221.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 13, 1941.

Rehearing Denied November 3, 1941.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County, Chickasawba District; Neil Killough, Judge.

Red Williams was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Gene E. Bradley, of Blytheville, for appellant.

Jack Holt, Atty. Gen., and Jno. P. Streepey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

FRANK G. SMITH, Justice.

Two informations were filed against appellant, each charging him with the crime of receiving stolen property. The first information alleged the ownership of the stolen property to be in Dr. F. B. Elliott; the second alleged the owner of the stolen property to be unknown. The cases were consolidated and tried together, and appellant was found guilty of receiving the property stolen from Dr. Elliott and given a sentence of two years in the penitentiary, and this appeal is from the judgment pronounced on this verdict.

The testimony is to the following effect. Lewis Rusk, who was 18 years old at the time of the trial, and two younger boys, conspired together to steal automobile wheels and tires and casings with the inner tubes. Junior Ragan, one of these boys, testified that they started operations in April or May, and continued their thefts until July, when they were arrested. Admittedly as many as 8 or 9 tires, wheels and casings were stolen in this interval. It is not entirely clear how many of these appellant bought, but it is fairly inferable that he bought all the boys stole.

Appellant and the boys were arrested, and appellant was told to bring to the jail all the wheels, etc., which he had bought, and he brought 8 wheels and 6 tires to the jail. One of these wheels was identified by Dr. Elliott as his property, which he testified was stolen from the trunk of his automobile. The boys told how the sales were made to appellant, and their testimony as to the time and manner and places of sale makes the inference irresistible that appellant must have known that the wheels, etc., had been stolen. For instance, one of the sales was made and the wheel delivered in a cornfield.

It was appellant's custom, when he made purchases, to take a bill-of-sale, and the boys testified that they did not tell appellant that they were selling stolen property, and they further testified that appellant did not know the property had been stolen.

Appellant operated a repair and junk shop, and dealt in secondhand wheels, tires, casings, and inner tubes, and he testified that his purchases from the boys were made in the usual course of this business, and that he did not know he was buying stolen property.

Dr. Elliott had a new wheel, which he carried in the trunk of his car, ready to be placed on the car when occasion arose. When he identified his wheel, it was delivered to him and it was not present at the trial.

The wheel alleged to be the property of an unknown owner was produced at the trial, and witnesses placed its value at more than $10, while other witnesses thought it was not of that value.

Dr. Elliott's wheel was one which could have been used interchangeably with the wheel belonging to the unknown owner, and we think the testimony is sufficient to support the finding that, if the wheel belonging to the unknown owner was worth more than $10,...