State v. Craig

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Craig

107 S.E. 926, 116 S.C. 440, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 91

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket10652

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 926 (State v. Craig) 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. Craig, 107 S.E. 926, 116 S.C. 440, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 91 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from conviction and sentence on charge of grand larceny. The defendant picked up a purse lying between the seats of one of the cars of the Augusta-Aiken Railway & Electric Corporation, soon after boarding the car at Langley, S. C., and appropriated the .contents, $25.43, to his own use, and refused to return it to the owner on demand.

There are three exceptions charging error on the part of his Llonor Judge Mauedin.

The first exception charges error, in that his Honor erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty, on motion made in behalf of defendant at the close of the testimony, on the ground that under the testimony the facts did not constitute grand larceny. This exception cannot be sustained. The evidence shows that the purse was not lost property, but misplaced property. The conductor saw the purse; was going to pick it up, when defendant took it. The property was mislaid, and accidentally left on the trolley car; it was never lost or abandoned. The defendant reasonably supposed the owner could be found, and he knew *442 that it was not lost property, but misplaced, and accidentally left where he picked it up. In Ruling Case Law, Vol. 17, § 43, p. 40:

“Thus property left by the owner on the seat of a street car is not lost so as to entitle a finder to its custody, if the owner remembers where he left it and speedily applies for its restoration, and a person is guilty who takes up such property with the intent to appropriate it to his own use, or where he forms the intent after taking up the property and ascertaining that it does not belong to him.”

Mr. Justice McGowan in State v. Davenport, 38 S. C. 352, 17 S. E. 38, uses this language:

“The intent to steal need not have existed at the time of obtaining possession of the property, if followed by a felonious appropriation.”

There is no merit in any of the exceptions, and all are overruled, and 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 Watts.

This is an appeal from conviction and sentence on charge of grand larceny. The defendant picked up a purse lying between the seats of one of the cars of the Augusta-Aiken Railway & Electric Corporation, soon after boarding the car at Langley, S. C., and appropriated the .contents, $25.43, to his own use, and refused to return it to the owner on demand.

There are three exceptions charging error on the part of his Llonor Judge Mauedin.

The first exception charges error, in that his Honor erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty, on motion made in behalf of defendant at the close of the testimony, on the ground that under the testimony the facts did not constitute grand larceny. This exception cannot be sustained. The evidence shows that the purse was not lost property, but misplaced property. The conductor saw the purse; was going to pick it up, when defendant took it. The property was mislaid, and accidentally left on the trolley car; it was never lost or abandoned. The defendant reasonably supposed the owner could be found, and he knew *442 that it was not lost property, but misplaced, and accidentally left where he picked it up. In Ruling Case Law, Vol. 17, § 43, p. 40:

“Thus property left by the owner on the seat of a street car is not lost so as to entitle a finder to its custody, if the owner remembers where he left it and speedily applies for its restoration, and a person is guilty who takes up such property with the intent to appropriate it to his own use, or where he forms the intent after taking up the property and ascertaining that it does not belong to him.”

Mr. Justice McGowan in State v. Davenport, 38 S. C. 352, 17 S. E. 38, uses this language:

“The intent to steal need not have existed at the time of obtaining possession of the property, if followed by a felonious appropriation.”

There is no merit in any of the exceptions, and all are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 926, 116 S.C. 440, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-craig-sc-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack