Case Name: ASHLEY v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1918-10-08
Citations: 22 Ga. App. 620
Docket Number: 9758
Parties: ASHLEY v. THE STATE.
Judges: Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
9758.
ASHLEY v. THE STATE.
The evidence authorized a finding that the taking of the seed from the store by the accused was done privately,. and that he was guilty of larceny from the house.
Decided October 8, 1918.
Accusation of larceny from house; from city court of Eastman— Judge Griffin. October 23, 1917.
It was contended on the part of the plaintiff in error that, according to the evidence, 'the seed alleged to have been stolen from the prosecutor’s store were not privately, taken, and the owner con- ' sented to the taking, and therefore the conviction was unauthorized.
8. P. New, for plaintiff in error, cited:
Penal Code (1910), § 176; Edmondson v. State, 18 Ga. App. 233; O’Bannon v. State, 76 Ga. 29.
J. H. Boperts, solicitor pro tern., contra.

Opinion:
Broyles, P. J.
The defendant, after buying some other articles in the prosecutor's storehouse in the daytime, put his hand into a box and took out several packages of garden-seed (of the value of 45 cents), put them into his pocket, and- walked out of the build ing. The box of seed was in the front part of the store, and when the seed were taken the prosecutor was at his desk near the rear of the store and could not be seen by the defendant. The prosecutor, however, could see the defendant, and saw him take the seed, but said and did nothing at the time. On the trial the prosecutor testified that the seed were taken without his consent. A clerk in the store also saw the defendant take the seed, and told the prosecutor about it when the defendant left, and the prosecutor replied, "Let him go." The prosecution was not instituted until about fourteen months after the alleged larceny was committed. The defendant introduced no evidence and made no statement. The evidence authorized the finding that the (defendant did privately steal the seed.
Judgment affirmed.
Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.