Davis v. State, (1929)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 5
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: W. T. Bludworth, for Plaintiffs in Error;
Fred H. Davis, Attorney General, and H. E. Carter, Assistant, for the State.
Filed: May 27, 1929
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Plaintiffs in error were convicted of the larceny of a cow. The contention made in their behalf is that there was no evidence of "taking and carrying away." There was, however, sufficient evidence to show that the cow was butchered at the place where she was shot, and the operations necessary to prepare the beef for market *Page 988 almost completed, when the plaintiffs in error were discovered and ran away. The judgment of conviction is affirmed on authority of Driggers v. State, 118 So. R. 20.
Summary: Plaintiffs in error were convicted of the larceny of a cow. The contention made in their behalf is that there was no evidence of "taking and carrying away." There was, however, sufficient evidence to show that the cow was butchered at the place where she was shot, and the operations necessary to prepare the beef for market *Page 988 almost completed, when the plaintiffs in error were discovered and ran away. The judgment of conviction is affirmed on authority of Driggers v. State, 118 So. R. 20. ..
More
Plaintiffs in error were convicted of the larceny of a cow. The contention made in their behalf is that there was no evidence of "taking and carrying away." There was, however, sufficient evidence to show that the cow was butchered at the place where she was shot, and the operations necessary to prepare the beef for market
almost completed, when the plaintiffs in error were discovered and ran away. The judgment of conviction is affirmed on authority of Driggers v. State, 118 So. R. 20.
TERRELL, C. J., AND ELLIS AND BROWN, J. J., concur.
Source: CourtListener
