Court Opinion

ID: 9825576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:24:50.541452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:00.681207
License: Public Domain

SAMFORD, J.
This is just a plain simple case of grand larceny in which the defendant is charged with the felonious taking of a cow. It is admitted by defendant .that he did take a cow and sell it for $25, but he claims that the cow belonged to his wife; that it wag running out on the commons; that his wife told him to take it and sell it; and that he took it openly, sold it openly, and when charged with the theft he still claimed that the cow was his wife’s. The state, on the other hand, offered testimony tending to prove the felonious taking and carrying away of the cow and that it *374was not the property of defendant’s wife, but was the property of Will Jolly, the prosecutor, and that its peculiar markings were such as that defendant could not have mistaken the cow for that of his wife’s. Many, many exceptions were reserved by the defendant to the introduction of evidence, but upon examination we find that in each instance the ruling of the court was free from error or was of such nature and effect as not to injuriously affect the substantial rights of defendant.
 Regarding the thirty-two refused charges requested in writing by defendant, we have read and considered each of them. Where these charges state correct propositions of law, the same charge had been given by the court either in his oral charge or in written charges at the defendant’s request.
The record as a whole discloses full opportunity for the defendant to introduce evidence to sustain his defense, and the charge of the court was full, fair, explicit, and stated the law of the ease as applied to the facts.
We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.