Case ID: ala_55/html/0142-01.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

Stollenwerk v. The State.
    
      Indictment .for Larceny.
    
    1. Description of animal stolen. — “ A yearling, of the value of six dollars, ’’ without the addition of any other descriptive words, is not a sufficient description of the animal stolen, in an indictment for grand larceny under the act approved February 20, 1875, amending section 3700 of the Itevised Code (Sess. Acts 1874-5, p. 260) ; nor can the indictment be sustained as a charge of petit larceny.
    Feom tbe Circuit Court of Lowndes.
    Tried before tbe Hon. James Q. Smith.
    Tbe indictment in this case was found at tbe November term of said court, 1875, and contained but a single count, wbicb charged that tbe defendant “ did feloniously steal, take, and carry away a yearling, of tbe value of six dollars, tbe personal property of B.WoIlfe.” Tbe defendant pleaded not guilty, without making any objection to tbe indictment; but, after conviction, be moved in arrest of judgment, on tbe ground that tbe indictment, in its description of tbe animal stolen, was too indefinite to sustain a conviction. Tbe court overruled tbe motion, bolding tbe indictment good as a charge of petit larceny, though insufficient as a charge of grand larceny under section 3706 of tbe Revised Code, as amended by tbe act approved February 20, 1875. The jury having returned a verdict of guilty, tbe court sentenced the defendant to bard labor for the county for tbe term of twelve months. Tbe overruling of tbe motion in arrest, and tbe judgment of tbe court, are now urged as error.
    Watts & Sons, for tbe defendant.
    Jno. W. A. Sanford, Attorney-General, for the State.
   STONE, J. —

Any animal in tbe second year of its growth is a “yearling.” The description in tbe present indictment is too indefinite. It may include many animals, for tbe stealing of wbicb tbe act of February 20, 1875, does not provide. If the indictment bad charged, that tbe animal stolen, describing it, was “an animal of tbe cow kind,” it would have been sufficient. Nor is tbe indictment a sufficient charge of petit larceny. Tbe animal may have been one wbicb bad no recognized money value. The motion in arrest of judgment should have been sustained.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. Let the prisoner remain in custody, until discharged by due course of law.