Case ID: ga-app_5/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Russell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

1430.
    Wilson v. The State.
    Indictment for larceny from the house, from Spalding superior court — Judge Beagan. September 16, 1908.
    Argued November 10,
    Decided November 24, 1908.
    The indictment charged Wilson with having stolen from the depot of the Central of Georgia Bailway Company a pair of “ladies’ black button shoes, Selz make.” The State introduced testimony to the effect that a pair of shoes of the kind described in the indictment were missed from a box received at the depot, and that about that time a pair of shoes of that kind were found in a paper sack behind the scales in the depot; that the pair in the paper sack were allowed to remain where they were found, until the next day, when Joe Day, an employee at'the depot, called the defendant into the depot and handed the shoes to him; that the defendant put them under his coat and started across the street, towards Day’s house; that Hale, an employee at the depot, called to the defendant to stop; he did so; Hale went to him and asked for the' sack that he had under his coat; he said he had no.sack, and Hale then reached out and took the shoes from under the defendant’s coat. , Day testified, that the defendant boarded at his house and came to the depot to get the house key, and he (Day) asked him to take the shoes to the house and leave them. The defendant made-a statement to the jury to the same effect, and said that he knew nothing further about the shoes than he had stated. After con-’ vietion he moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was without evidence to support it; the motion was overruled, and he excepted.
    
      Thomas ~W. Thurman, for plaintiff in error,
    cited Penal Code,, §984; 2 Ga. App. 534; 84 Ga. 466; 93 Ga. 557.
    
      O. H. B. Bloodworth, solicitor-general, O. H. B. Bloodworth Jr.,, contra.
   Russell, J.

The circumstantial evidence, which is consistent with the guilt of the accused, not being inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of his innocence, and being quite insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, an intent to steal, a new trial should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.