Swain County NcArchives Court.....W. M. Hayes, State V. 1892
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Connie Ardrey n/a December 25, 2011, 8:18 pm

Source: N C Reports
Written: 1892

The State v. W. M. Hayes

Indictment for Larceny - Charge - Intent - Possession

1. In a trial on an indictment for larceny of an ox, the Court charged that if 
defendant got possession under a contract of purchase he was not guilty: Held, 
to be no proper response to the prayer of defendant that if he came into 
possession lawfully, and afterwards made up his mind to convert them to his 
own use, he would not be guilty; this view of the case the defendant was 
entitled to have presented to the jury, as it was a construction warranted by 
the facts.

2. A charge which makes the defendant's guilt depend upon his intention at the 
time of getting possession, without further finding he afterwards executed 
that intention, is erroneous.

This was an Indictment for the larceny of an ox, tried before Bynum, J., at 
the Fall Term, 1892, of Swain Superior Court.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Attorney General for the State
Messrs. Fry & Newby (by brief) for defendant

NC Supreme Court Justice Clark, J. - The defendant asked the Court to instruct 
the jury, "That if the defendant came into possession of the oxen, charged to 
have been stolen, lawfully, and after getting possession of them, he then made 
up his mind to convert them to his own use, he would not be guilty." Instead 
of this the Court charged, "If the defendant and Arthur had made a contract of 
purchase and sale, and in accordance with this contract Arthur delivered the 
cattle to the defendant, then the jury should return a verdict of not guilty." 
The Court further charged the jury, that "if the defendant applied to Arthur 
for work, presenting to him that he had money and spoke of buying the cattle, 
that he did this for the purpose of inducing Arthur to let him have possession 
of the cattle for the expressed purpose of hauling lumber, and the defendant 
had it in his mind at that time to get possession of the cattle, not for the 
purpose of hauling lumber, but with the intention, if he did get them under 
that pretence, to appropriate them to his own use, it would be the duty of the 
jury to return a verdict of guilty."

The defendant was entitled to the first prayer for instruction. The Court 
failed to give it. His Honor, in effect, charged (1) If defendant bought the 
oxen he was not guilty; (2) if the defendant got possession of the cattle for 
the avowed purpose of hauling lumber, but with the intent at the time of not 
so using them, but to convert them to his own use, he was guilty.

These instructions leave out of view the third state of facts upon which the 
prayer for instruction was based, and which could be drawn from the evidence, 
that is, if the defendant procured the oxen lawfully, i.e., for the purpose of 
hauling lumber, and did not at that time have the intent of converting them to 
his own use, but afterwards conceived and executed such purpose, he would not 
be guilty of this charge. The charge of the Court was, merely, that if the 
defendant bought the oxen, he was not guilty. 

The second branch of the instruction given is also erroneous, in making the 
defendant's guilt depend upon an intention at the time of the receiving to 
convert the oxen, without the further finding that the defendant did, in fact, 
afterwards convert them to his own use.

Error


Additional Comments:
In the NC Supreme Court September Term 1892

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/swain/court/wmhayes2174gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/

File size: 3.9 Kb