Case ID: ga-app_25/html/0190-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Broyles, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

11264.
    Adams v. The State.
    Decided April 13, 1920.
    Accusation of larceny; from city court of Brunswick — Judge Krauss. December 23, 1919.
    Larceny of a handbag of 0. L. Wright was charged in the accusation. He testified that on September 18, 1919, at 5:30 o’clock in the morning, he left Ms suit-case in his room at the house in which he boarded, and that when he returned at noon it was gone, and he never saw it again; he saw Willie Adams, the defendant, who was one of the other' persons living in the house, and asked him about the suit-case, and Adams said he knew nothing about it, but believed ho knew somebody who did know. Mrs. Griffin testified that she “ran the house” in which Wright and Willie Adams roomed, and she remembered seeing the suitcase in Wright’s room when her daughter was cleaning up the room on the day on which the suit-case disappeared; that she left her daughter in the room and went down stairs, and Willie Adams was then up stairs in his room; she did not know when he left the house; he never came back after that day; when he was working he left the house early in the morning; she did not know whether he was working then or not; her house was a rooming house. ' A policeman testified, that he went to a certain house to arrest the defendant and found him asleep, and told him he was under arrest, and he said: “I know what you are after me about; it is about that suit-case; I did not take it, but I know who did;” that the defendant said no more, and was taken to jail; that the arrest was in the latter part of October, and the witness had then and for a considerable time before that time a warrant for his arrest; the defendant had run on seeing the witness before that time. No additional witness testified. The defendant, in his statement at the trial, said that he left Mrs. Griffin’s house early in the morning of the day on which they said the suit-case was stolen, and he carried Arthur Brown’s grip to a designated place and went to his work; he returned from his work about 6 o’clock, was asked about the suit-case by Mrs. Griffin, and told her that he knew nothing about it; when he went to his room that night he found that his bed had been taken down, and he left and did not return; from that time he stayed at his mother’s house, where he was found at the time of his arrest; he told the officer that he did not take the suit-case, but knew who did, and that when he got before the court and told what kind of house they were running they would know who got the suitcase; he did not know that this particular one got it, but believed that some one allowed in the house got it.
   Broyles, C. J.

Under the undisputed facts of this case, the circumstantial evidence relied upon to convict the defendant failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and, therefore, his conviction was contrary to law and the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Frank H. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

F. M, Scarlett Jr,, solicitor, contra: