Cartledge v. State

Eor some unaccountable reason, both in this case and in the case of Everett v. State, this day decided, and involving the same crime, ante, 390 (83 S. E. 428), learned counsel for the plaintiff in error appear to have labored under the impression that the indictment charged the larceny of not only three hogs described as the property of J. M. Windsor and identified by his evidence, but *397also of a fourth hog, described iu the evidence as a certain sow, marks unknown, ownership unknown, which the evidence discloses was found in the possession of the defendant Cartledge, and which, on the trial…