Case ID: scl_5/html/0005-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The court,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    DEC. 1811.
    The State v. Sansom.
    The defendant was indicted for stealing “ a shovel flow,” but it was proved that lie only stole the iron fart of what is called a shovel plow ; and although the judge below was of opinion that the evidence did not support the indictment, the jury, by his recommendation, found the prisoner guilty, that the point might be decided by the Court of Appeals. That ■court granted a new trial on the ground, that the circuit judge should have left it to the jury to determine whether the thing stolen, was, according to common understanding, a shovel flow, as charged in the indictment.
    Motion for a new trial.- The defendant was indicted in Edge-field district, before Brevard, J., for stealing “ a shovel plow.”
    The evidence proved, that the defendant stole the iron part of what is called a shovel plow, which is commonly called the hoe. No evidence was given respecting the value of the article stolen. The judge was of opinion the evidence did not support the indictment, as it went only to prove the felonious taking and carrying away of the iron part of an instrument of husbandry, which consists of wood, as well as iron, called a plow ; and as the indictment charged the stealing of a particular species of plow, called a shovel plow, it was necessary to prove that the thing taken came substantially under that description, which it could not, as nothing of the wooden part of the instrument was stolen. He, however, recom. mended it to the jury to find a verdict of guilty, in order that the point might be determined by the Court of Appeals. As to the objection made at the trial, on the ground, that as no evidence had been given relative to the value of the article stolen, the jury could not give a verdict, as the price or value of the article ought to be proved ; the judge was of opinion it ought not to prevail, inasmuch as the article proved to have been stolen, must appear to the jury, beyond any doubt, from the nature of the thing, to be of some value; and if not equal to the price or value charged in the indictment, yet 0f sufficient value to warrant the jury in finding the offender guilty of petit larceny.
    The defendant was found guilty of petit larceny.
    The motion for a new trial was argued by A. Crenshaw, for the prisoner, and Stake, Solicitor of the Southern Circuit, on the part of the State.
    Crenshaw, argued, that certainty is necessary in indictments. That use ought to be the standard of speech. Plow is a genus ; shovel plow a species. A plow is composed of iron and wood; the instrument called the hoe, or shovel, giving the name, or distinction, to the plow. To steal a bar-share, would not subject the offender to an indictment for stealing a bar-share plow : so to steal harrow teeth, would not be the stealing of a harrow ; because the wooden part of those instruments, or implements of husbandry, would be wanting.
    Secondly : The article stolen was notproven to be of any value ; and it cannot legally be inferred that it was of any value. In criminal cases the construction must always be in favor of innocence.
    Stark, contra. The iron part of a shovel plow is commonly called a shovel plow. The farmers who use them, call them so, without the wooden part, as when such pieces of iron are carried to the blacksmith to be repaired, or when they are first made. It ought to have been left to the jury to decide, whether the thing stolen was not what it is charged to be in the indictment. It must be presumed the jury did so determine, and the verdict is correct. Quoted 2 Haw. 322. The verdict is conclusive as to the value.
    Richardson, Attorney General,
    argued, that every thing the sub. ject of property must be deemed of some value. The conviction establishes the value. As to the other objection, the word “ plow” may be rejected as surplusage, the word being spelt plow, and not plough, has no meaning.
    Crenshaw, in reply. The first objection would be fatal in a civil case, in an action of trover or detinue. Greater certainty is requisite in criminal cases. The second objection has not been answered. How does it appear that the article stolen is a subject of property ; is of any value 1 The conviction is not conclusive, because it is a conviction without evidence ; and the question at present, is, whether there was evidence of the value charged, or notl Plow is a good spelling of the word, and having a signification material to the charge, cannot be rejected as surplusage.
   The court,

all but Nott, J.,

being of opinion with the Solicitor, were for rejecting the motion; but upon the representation of the judge who presided at the trial, that probably the jury might have found their verdict pursuant to his recommendation; and that had he left it to them to determine the question of fact, whether the thing stolen was, according to common understanding, a shovel plow, as charged in the indictment, or not, as it would seem it was his duty to have done, it was possible the jury might have been of opinion it was not the thing charged, but only a part of it, and that they would have found the defendant not guilty.

The court granted a new trial on that ground. The objection as to the value of the article was not considered material.