(DOWNLOAD) "State v. Grimsley" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Grimsley
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 13, 1934
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 56 KB
Description
Criminal Law ? Grand Larceny ? Livestock ? Proof of Ownership in Partnership ? Sufficiency ? Evidence ? Habits of Animals ? Conclusion of Experienced Stockman ? Admissibility. Grand Larceny ? Livestock ? Proof of Ownership ? Sufficiency. 1. While the ownership of property (livestock) charged to have been stolen must be alleged, its particular ownership is not of the essence of the crime, the allegation in this behalf being merely a matter of description which does not give character to - Page 328 the act, and the same strictness of proof is not required as in the proof of material facts. Same ? Ownership in Partnership ? Sufficiency of Proof. 2. In a prosecution for the larceny of calves allegedly owned by a partnership, evidence, though falling short of technical proof that the two owners were partners, held sufficient to warrant a finding by the jury that the animals were partnership property. Same ? Explanatory Testimony of Defendant as to Possession not Directly Contradicted ? When Verdict of Guilty not Against Law. 3. Where the facts and circumstances proven by the state in a prosecution for larceny of calves tended to show guilt on part of the defendant, the fact that explanatory testimony given by him and members of his family was not directly contradicted did not render the verdict of guilty one against law, where the jury evidently did not believe such testimony to be true. Same ? Evidence ? Habits of Animals ? When Conclusion of Experienced Stockman Inadmissible. 4. While the conduct or habits of animals and the conditions or emotions of which they are in whole or in part a reaction may be stated in a shorthand way by one who has observed them, where all the facts can be placed before the jury so as to enable them to form a reasonable inference, the conclusion of the witness is inadmissible. Same ? Evidence ? Conduct of Cows Which Recently Lost Calves ? Opinion of Stockman Admissible. 5. In a prosecution for the larceny of two calves, refusal of the court to strike the testimony of a cattleman that two cows, the condition of the bags of which indicated that they had lost their calves but a short time theretofore, were acting as though they were looking for them, held not reversible error under the circumstances, among them that defendant killed the calves after being charged with their theft and thus blocked the test proposed by the stock inspector by getting the cows and seeing whether they would claim the calves.
 "State v. Grimsley" by Supreme Court of Montana # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}