Case Name: James H. Croft v. State
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1939-05-12
Citations: 139 Fla. 711
Docket Number: 
Parties: James H. Croft v. State.
Judges: Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 139
Pages: 711–711

Head Matter:
James H. Croft v. State.
191 So. 34
Division A
Opinion Filed May 12, 1939
Martin & Martin, for Plaintiff in Error;
George Coiiper Gibbs, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
To judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of a cow plaintiff in error sued out writ of error.
He presents two questions for our consideration, stated as follows:
"Question No. One: In' a larceny prosecution is it esential to a valid conviction that the State prove venue?"
"Question No. Two: Is the evidence in the case at bar sufficient to justify conviction for larceny of a cow?"
Both questions must be answered in the affirmative.
Inspection of the record discloses that the'State met the burden suggested by each question.
No reversible error being made to appear, the judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.