State v. Ayoub

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Ayoub

98 S.E. 133, 111 S.C. 331, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 28

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 22, 1919

Docket10129

StatusPublished

This text of 98 S.E. 133 (State v. Ayoub) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ayoub, 98 S.E. 133, 111 S.C. 331, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 28 (S.C. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1 Appellant was indicted for housebreaking and grand larceny, and convicted of grand larceny. The theft alleged was of a number of inner tubes and castings for automobile tires, which ranged in value from $2.50 to $6 each. If the several articles were stolen at different times, the thief was guilty of only so many cases of petit larceny, but if they were all taken at the same time, the aggregate value was enough to make a case of grand larceny.

2 At the close of all the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty of grand larceny, on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a conviction of that offense. He concedes that, if the evidence was susceptible of the inference that the goods were all stolen at the same time, there was no error in refusing his motion. We think the evidence clearly warranted the inference that the goods were all stolen at one time, and hence that there was no error in submitting that issue to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

1 Appellant was indicted for housebreaking and grand larceny, and convicted of grand larceny. The theft alleged was of a number of inner tubes and castings for automobile tires, which ranged in value from $2.50 to $6 each. If the several articles were stolen at different times, the thief was guilty of only so many cases of petit larceny, but if they were all taken at the same time, the aggregate value was enough to make a case of grand larceny.

2 At the close of all the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict of not guilty of grand larceny, on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a conviction of that offense. He concedes that, if the evidence was susceptible of the inference that the goods were all stolen at the same time, there was no error in refusing his motion. We think the evidence clearly warranted the inference that the goods were all stolen at one time, and hence that there was no error in submitting that issue to the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 133, 111 S.C. 331, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ayoub-sc-1919.