¶1 Indictment for larceny. It is only necessary to refer to two of the counts in the bill. One charges the defendant with stealing a “ cattle beast,” the property of Judson 0. Blakely, and the other with stealing a cattle beast, the property of some one to the jurors unknown ; and the defendant was convicted on the latter count.
¶2 If we should exclude the evidence that the prosecutor, Blakely, had stolen from him several cattle about the time that the prisoner was selling butchered beef in the town of Washington, it could hardly be contended that there was evidence to convict the prisoner ; for the case states that “ there was no evidence of the loss of cattle by any other person but the prosecutor, Blakely. On the other hand, if we do not exclude that testimony, which of course was competent, then whatever weight it was entitled to, tended to show a larceny of the cattle of Blakely, a person “known.” It was therefore error in the jury to find the prisoner guilty of stealing the cattle of some one, to the jurors “ unknown.”
¶3 Judgment reversed.
¶4 Venire de novo.