Younkins v. State

• Decision Date: 31 December 1865
• Citation: Younkins v. State, 42 Tenn. 219 (Tenn. 1865)
• Parties: JOHN YOUNKINS v. THE STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

42 Tenn. 219

JOHN YOUNKINS

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December Term, 1865.

FROM DAVIDSON.

The plaintiff in error was convicted at the April term, 1865, of the criminal court of Davidson county, for hog stealing, Judge THOMAS N. FRAZIER, presiding.Defendant appealed.

WILLIAM K. TURNER, for the plaintiff in error.

THOS. H. COLDWELL, attorney-general, for the state.

MILLIGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The prisoner, John Younkins, a free man of color, was indicted and convicted in the criminal court of Davidson for stealing a hog.The indictment lays the property stolen, in one Amanda Leak.There is no exception to the charge of the court, and the only error assigned, arises on the proof.It it insisted, the corpus delicti is not sufficiently proven.The substance of the testimony in the case is, that signs of blood were seen on the turnpike, which were traced to a place in the field, where a small shoat, unmarked, weighing forty or fifty pounds, partly skinned, was found.From this place there appeared to be a track leading in the direction of the prisoner's house, which was followed; and the prisoner was seen running, and shortly thereafter, he was found on a wagon.He was told by the witness he would arrest him, when he replied, “he reckoned not,” and thereupon drew a knife and advanced on the witness, who gave back, and the prisoner ran off.He was then pursued by a party on horseback, for several miles, and shot at, and finally overtaken and arrested.After the arrest, and when he had been under guard about two hours, he took the witness aside and told him, “if he would let him off, he would give him two shoats and all the money he had.”

It further appears that the prisoner told a colored woman, who was examined as a witness against him, that he wanted to borrow a bag to get some turnips in, and asked her to go with him; and on the way, he said he had a hog over the hill, and that he would give her a piece of it.She declined going further, and returned.

One of the witnesses stated that the property, alleged to have been stolen, belonged to Mrs. Leak.He knew her hogs, and he believed this one to be her property; but he did know whether she had parted with it or not.Mrs. Leak resided about seven miles from the place of trial; was at home, but was not called as a witness.

It cannot be denied, that the facts and circumstances of this case, produce a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused; but...