Case ID: ga-app_12/html/0479-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Russell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

4346.
    Munn v. The State.
    Decided March 18, 1913.
    Accusation of larceny; from city court of Thomasville—Judge W. H. Hammond. July 8, 1912.
    Munn was convicted of simple larceny. The only question presented by his motion for a new trial and the bill of exceptions was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. According to the evidence, he borrowed a watch, saying that he was going to call on some girls and wanted to wear it. He promised to return it that afternoon, but did not return it. He borrowed $1.5'0 from a third person, and deposited the watch with that person as security. When the lender of the watch asked for its return, Munn made false statements, as to its being at his house, etc., and finally, and on the next day after the day on which he borrowed the watch, he admitted that he had deposited it as security for the money borrowed.' He said that he was expecting to get $10 from Mr. Titus, who owed him that amount, and to return the money borrowed and get the watch. Just after this disclosure the owner of the watch caused his arrest. In his statement at the trial the accused admitted the main facts stated above, and added: “Some time before this I had traded hats with Mr. Daniels [the lender of the watch], and he owed me $1.50 to boot. I finally told Daniels where the watch was, and told him about Mr. Titus owing me the money. I called his attention to the $1.50 he owed me, and he said it was all right. Before I saw Mr. Titus I was arrested. I did not intend to steal the watch.”
   Russell, J.

While the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of larceny was weak, still the testimony was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer that the accused entertained the animus furandi when he borrowed the prosecutor’s watch. Rice v. State, 6 Ca. App. 160 (64 S. E. 575); Bryant v. State, 8 Ga. App. 389 (69 S. E. 121); Martin v. State, 123 Ga. 478 (51 S. E. 334). Judgment affirmed.

Theodore Titus, for plaintiff in error.

Boscoe Luke, solicitor, contra.