State v. Esmond
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Fulton Circuit Court; J. B. Baker, Judge; It was error to direct a verdict. There was no fatal variance. It is true the land was owned by Dozier, but Montgomery had such special ownership or interest as entitled him to the custody and possession of the growing crops. The proof was sufficient to sustain the allegations as to ownership. 80 Ark. 495; 42 Id. 73; Kirby’s Digest, § 1900.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
Appellees were indicted for the crime of larceny, alleged to have been committed by stealing ‘ ‘ a certain quantity of oats growing on the farm and soil of W. H. Montgomery.” The indictments were returned under section 1900 of Kirby’s Digest, and testimony was introduced tending to show that appellees were guilty as charged except that Montgomery was not the owner of the land from which the oats were cut and. removed. The land belonged to John Dozier, and Montgomery was a tenant of Dozier, and under his contract was to pay as rent for the land ‘ ‘ one-third of the oats harvested. ’ ’ But…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Blankenship v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- McCowan v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- Merritt v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
- Cook v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Scott v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1883
3Cited by6 opinions
- Powell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
- Crouthers v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Holden v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1925
- Houpt v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Muhammed v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.