Stevens v. State

2 S.E. 684, 77 Ga. 310, 1887 Ga. LEXIS 109
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 1, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2 S.E. 684 (Stevens v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Stevens v. State, 2 S.E. 684, 77 Ga. 310, 1887 Ga. LEXIS 109 (Ga. 1887).

Opinion

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

• 1. In the house hog bones, in the garden hog hair, hog entrails, hog meat, buried m the earth, refusal of the occupant of the premises to permit a search without legal warrant, his abrupt departure from home whilst the warrant was being procured, his flight or retreat to a point more than fifty miles distant, and his continuous absence until arrested and brought back for trial, aré strongly suggestive of a suspicious intercourse on his part with some hog or other. The jury were of opinion that it was the hog described in the indictment; and as he was a near neighbor to that hog, and as it disappeared about that time and its owner went in search of it as a stolen hog, and as the hair and the meat found buried in the garden looked like the hair and meat of that hog, it is highly probable that the jury were not mistaken.

2. Complaint is made that a witness was allowed to testify that the owner was hunting for the animal “ as a stolen [312]*312hog.” And so he was, undoubtedly. He would not want to look in a dwelling-house, or under the ground in a garden, for a strayed hog 5 and such were the places searched. How the witness ascertained that the owner regarded it as stolen, whether from acts alone, or from declarations and acts together, does not appear; but if the prisoner or his counsel had wanted to learn this, the witness ought to have been interrogated on the sources - of his knowledge. He testified as if he knew the fact somehow, and if he knew it, he could state it as explanatory of the mode and purpose of the search. He was present at the search and assisted in conducting it on the owner’s behalf. Moreover, the prisoner himself was present, face to face with the owner, when the investigation began, and when steps were taken to enter upon the search with due legal authority. He ,could have had no doubt that the owner was looking for stolen property. • Any man who inters his poik may expect the late departed hog to be hunted for as stolen, if it is hunted for at all, on his premises.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Herrington v. State
253 S.E.2d 810 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Forbes v. State
180 S.E. 914 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Hammond v. State
169 S.E. 325 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Hall v. State
95 S.E. 936 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Beasley v. State
77 S.E. 100 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
Cody v. State
124 Ga. 446 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 S.E. 684, 77 Ga. 310, 1887 Ga. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-state-ga-1887.