Case Name: J. Dilley ads. The State
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1837
Citations: 1 Ril. 302
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. Dilley ads. The State.
Judges: RICHARD GANTT,
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 302–302

Head Matter:
J. Dilley ads. The State.
Tried before his Honor Judge Evans, Charleston, January Term, 1837.
Larceny. — The defendant, with one Jacob Craig, was indicted for stealing a certain quantity of silver coin, and a volume of Humes’ History of England. They were a part of the crew of the schr. J. C. Calhoun, during a voyage to Matanzas. Whilst at Matanzas, they had no money. Captain Ross, the commander, said, that whilst he was abseut, one.evening, the cabin was entered by force, and his trunk taken out. It was broken open on the deck, and the money taken out, amounting to about ninety-five dollars, in Spanish and Mexican dollars. The book was in the cabin, and there were also some Cuba lemons. From appearances, he judged it had been done by some one familiar with the vessel. He suspected the prisoners, as they had left the vessel only the day before. He caused them to be arrested, and when searched, at the guard house, a key was found on Craig, who denied it was his. Dilley offered to go with them, and point out Craig’s chest. The key opened it, and on examination, money in specie, Spanish aud Mexi. can dollars, were found ; the 5th volume of Hume, and lemons like those in the cabin. Dilley had no chest. His clothes were kept in Craig’s. Craig claimed the money, and told many stories of the manner he had obtained it. Dilley claimed none of the money, but he admitted the book was in his possession, which he said he had borrowed from Cruise, the mate; but this, Cruise denied; he admitted he had loaned Dilley books, which had been returned, but Hume was not one of them. The only evidence to convict Dilley with the theft, was the book, which he might have come into the possession of honestly. Craig’s equivocation and falsehood, left no doubt of his guilt. Dilley behaved with much fairness, and apparent candor ; and I regret that I had not advised the jury to acquit him. They were both found guilty, but I think Dilley’s guilt doubtful, and that he should have a new trial.
JOSIAH J. EVANS.
Ground of Appeal.
Because the eonviction was wholly unsupported by the evidence offerred on the trial.
MITCHELL, Defendant's Attorney.
Mitchell, for motion.

Opinion:
In this case the Attorney General consenting to a ziew trial, it is accordingly ordered.
RICHARD GANTT,
J. B. O'NEALL,
J. S. RICHARDSON,
JOSIAH J. EVANS.
A. I\ BUTLER,