Case ID: ala_67/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STONE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hild v. The State of Alabama.
    
      Burglary; when may he committed hy person in charge of house. — An employe left in charge of a house, who enters a closed room and steals therefrom, when, by virtue of his employment, he had no right to go there, is guilty of burglary.
    Appeal from Mobile City Court.
    Tried before Hon. O. J. Semmes.
    Charles Hild was indicted for burglary in breaking and entering the dwelling house of Y. S. Davis, with intent to steal. Hild was a farm laborer employed by Davis, and lived in the same house with him. Davis went to Mobile, leaving Hild in charge of the premises, and on his return found that his room had been entered, and various articles of clothing had been stolen. The defendant was absent, but confessed that he had taken the articles. Davis testified that the defendant, although he was left iu full charge of the house, had no right to go into his room, and that the doors of his room were closed but not locked. The defendant requested the court to charge the jury, “that if they believed, from the evidence, that the room of Mr. Davis fell within the trust and employment imposed on the defendant they must find him not guilty of burglary.” This charge the court refused to give and defendant excepted.
    The defendant was convicted, and the refusal to give the charge set out above is the error complained of.
    W. E. Richardson, for the defendant,
    oited 2 Hale’s PL Or. 354; Clark’s Manual, 847 ; 1 Russell on Crimes, 794; Edmond's case, Hutton’s Rep. 20; 8. G., Kilyng (King’s Bench), 67.
    H. O. Tompkins, Attorney-General for the State,
    cited Loioder v. The State, 63 Ala. 143; U. 8. v. Boioen, 4 Cr. C. O. 604 ; Gray's case, 1 Strange, 481; Cornwall’s, 2 lb. 881; Hutton’s Rep. 20; 2 Russell on Crimes, 7-11.
   STONE, J.

— The charge asked and refused in this case is not reconcilable with the principle settled in Lowder v. The State, 63 Ala. 143; see also, Clark’s Manual, 847. Moreover, it is doubtful if this charge was not calculated to mislead. The City Court did not err in refusing to give the charge asked.

Affirmed.