Warmoth v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 21 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. There never can be a larceny without a trespass. (Jlishop on Crim. Law, vol. 2, sec. 808; Greenleaf on Evidence, vol. 3, sec. 161.) 2. Possession of some sort must be in the prosecutor. (Wharton on Am. Law, sec. 1818; Bishop on Crim. Law, vol. 2, secs. 828, 1003; The Spirit of Laws, book 6; ch. 2, Gen. Stat.; lb., see. 2, art. 11, ch. 29; 13 Bush, 719; Bac.
Read the full summary
Case 21 — INDICTMENT APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT. 1. There never can be a larceny without a trespass. (Jlishop on Crim. Law, vol. 2, sec. 808; Greenleaf on Evidence, vol. 3, sec. 161.) 2. Possession of some sort must be in the prosecutor. (Wharton on Am. Law, sec. 1818; Bishop on Crim. Law, vol. 2, secs. 828, 1003; The Spirit of Laws, book 6; ch. 2, Gen. Stat.; lb., see. 2, art. 11, ch. 29; 13 Bush, 719; Bac. Ab., Felony, art. C, and Master and Servant, art. M, 2; Iiale’s Pleas of the Crown, 505; Boscoe’s Crim. Ev., 484 ; 4 Met., 374; 5 Bush, 430.) No brief.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Hargis
delivered ti-ie opinion op the court.
The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense of grand larceny, charged to have been committed by feloniously taking and carrying away $2,647.57 United States currency and bank notes, the property of the Adams Express Company, W. B. Dinsmore, and others.
He has appealed, and his counsel insist that the facts proven make out a case of embezzlement, and not that of larceny, and that the court erroneously instructed the jury. Upon first consideration, we were of the opinion that the crime alleged had been proven, but that is a fact which the…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Nolan v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1957
- Fleener v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Loker v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1967
- State v. KeelenOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- State v. Frank SmithWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.