Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

61 Ala. 48

Colquitt v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1878-12-15

Tried before Hon. Henry D. Clayton. The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted for the larceny of a hog. On the trial, the State introduced a witness, who testified, that about the middle of November, 1877, he went with one Harper to a field in which Harper had put his hogs to fatten; that they missed from said field a small white hog; that they made diligent search for said hog, and could neither find it, or any place where it could have gotten out.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1950

6 state decisions

20187818801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MANNING, J.

¶1We can not say that there was any error in the refusal of the judge to discharge the prisoner, after the evidence had been all given in, on the ground that it did *52not prove the corpus delicti, as it is called, and was not sufficient to put him on his defense. Nor was the motion consistent with the course pursued on defendant’s behalf. Witnesses were previously introduced by and examined for him, of course, upon the assumption, that this was made requisite by the testimony against him, on the part of the State. How much credit was due to defendant’s witnesses, it was for the jury before whom they testified to decide.

¶2As to the corpus delicti, it was shown that the hog alleged to have been stolen was with a number of others kept in a lot, in which they were put up to be fattened; that during the absence of the owner this animal disappeared. When he returned, it was gone, — and diligent search was made in vain, both for the hog, and for a place in the fence, through which it might have escaped. This was a year before the trial. Evidence was introduced tending to show that defendant and his wife had in their possession about the time the hog disappeared, a large piece of meat and portions of' the body of a hog, which in size, and color of the hair, corresponded with what might have been obtained from the hog that was gone, — that this meat was after being discovered put away and concealed by defendant’s wife, and that there was prevarication, or what the jury might consider to be prevarication and falsehood, on the part of defendant and his wife in regard to that meat.

¶3Whether the evidence was sufficient or not to convict was a question for the determination of the jury. The judge of the Circuit Court did not err in permitting it to go to them.

¶4The assignment of error, that the record does not show that the jury was sworn is founded on a mistake. It is not necessary that it should appear in what terms the oath was administered. It will be presumed to have been done properly when it is shown that they were sworn.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/61/ala/48 · .json · Public domain