Case ID: sc_134/html/0483-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Watts.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

12001
    STATE v. ROWLAND
    (133 S. E., 460)
    Lakcentt.- — -Evidence held to sustain conviction for larceny.
    Before FeathErstone, J., Spartanburg, April, 1926.
    Affirmed.
    Ed Rowland was convicted of larceny and he appeals.
    The facts are not in dispute and are as follows:
    Mrs. Pruitt’s chicken house was broken into some time about the middle of January, 1926, in the night-time. There were three parties there who participated in it. One wore a shoe about a No. 7 or 8; another wore a shoe about a 9 or 10; another wore a shoe about a 10 or 11. There was nothing peculiar' or characteristic about either of the tracks, and nothing about the shape, size, or otherwise of the tracks to hang an identity on. These tracks were at the door of the chicken house, and were followed and traced across a field into a road, down the road, across woods, into a field, into another road, and down the road and up to the piazza where the defendant-appellant, with his family, resided— then there was a lapse — about 60 feet from defendant-appellant’s piazza, these same tracks were again picked up, and followed for something like 400 or more yards to a big sawdust pile, and behind this pile of sawdust was found a box, and in the box were 9 of the chickens. They were barred Plymouth Rocks. It was further stated that the box was made out of freshly sawed lumber, that there were a few planks of freshly sawed lumber at the defendant’s house; that from the sawdust pile at least 50,000 feet of lumber had been recently sawed; that there were other dwelling houses in and around the sawmill and in close proximity to the sawdust pile, and as close to where the box of chickens was found as was the defendant’s residence.
    Np testimony was offered as to the size, shape, or peculiarity of defendant’s shoe track, or the track of any member of defendant’s family. No one testified that the defendant or any other member of defendant’s family had ever had possession of the chickens, had been seen near them, or that he or they knew anything about the chickens.
    
      Mr. L. G. Southard for appellant.
    
      Mr. I. C. Blackwood, Solicitor, for respondent.
    May 31, 1926.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

“The defendant-appellant was tried before Judge Feather-stone and a jury at the April term of the Sessions Court for Spartanburg County, charged with house-breaking and larceny. It was charged that he broke arid entered a house of Mrs. Pruitt, and took therefrom 19 chickens, of the value of $30. The jury found the defendant not guilty of housebreaking, but they found him guilty of larceny; and after overruling a motion to set aside the verdict on the ground that it was contradictory to the law and the evidence, the Judge sentenced him to serve for 4 months.”

The exceptions raise the question that his Honor should have directed a verdict of not guilty as asked for by the defendant, on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict as found by the jury.

It would serve no' useful purpose to point out the evidence and circumstances relied on by the State. It is sufficient to state that his Plonor committed no error in submitting the case to the jury, and there is ample evidence to- support their verdict.

All the exceptions are overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Cothran, Brease and Stabrer concur.