Case ID: add_1/html/0320-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "President.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FAYETTE COUNTY.
    December Term, 1796.
    
    Pennsylvania v. Stephen Myers.
    
      MYERS and one Pratt were suspected of being concerned, with several others, in horse-stealing and burglary. Myers was tried now for stealing a horse. It was proved, that he sold the horse in Maryland for 40 dollars, and the owner valued him at 80 dollars.-Myers and Pratt were both in jail, on a charge of burglary. Myers told the owner, that he bought the horse from Pratt. Pratt was not then present, but, afterwards, when asked by the owner, said, he never sold or gave a horse to Myers. At another time, Pratt said, he had given Myers a horse, which he had bought from a man whom he did not know. And, on the trial, he swore this, and that he had sold him to Myers for 30 dollars. Declarations of Myers were proved, that he gave 12 dollars to Pratt for the horse.
    
      Pratt was committed to answer for stealing this horse.
    
      Simonson, for the prisoner.
    The evidence, at most amounts only to proof of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen; and there can be no conviction on this indictment.
    Young, for the state.
    
      Pratt and Myers were consederates in this offence.
   President.

If Myers neither took this horse, nor was present aiding and abetting at the taking, he cannot be convicted on this indictment; for taking is a material part of the larceny. But there is evidence, that Myers had this horse; and, from this, it may be presumed, that he took him, unless he can give a credible account of his having otherwise got possession of him. You will therefore consider whether the account, which he has made of this, be credible; or whether, like the fable of the two thieves and the butcher, it be one of those tricks, which sharpers and thieves use, to cloak their common villany.

Verdict guilty.

Simonson, moved for a new trial on two grounds;-1. that the verdict is contrary to evidence; and, 2, that the direction to the jury was wrong.

President, 1. The jury had evidence, on which they might find the verdict, as they found it. The direction stated this to them. 2. We are yet of the same opinion we then gave.