
    The State vs. John Spenlove and Collins.
    Tried before his Honor Judge Bay, Charleston, October Term, 1836,
    
      Larceny. — Paul Renley, the prosecutor, stated that he had lost from his plantation a goat and two kids, and from information received, they were in the possession of Collins, one of the defendants. That he took out a search warrant, and went to the house of Collins, one of the defendants, and found in his possession two Rids, which he identified as his. That Mrs. Collins said that a sailor had made them a present to her. Upon Collins coming in, he stated that he had purchased them from this sailor, for his wife. That upon going out of the house of Collins, they met Spenlove, who gave a different account from the one Collins gave. That Spenlove stated, that he, with several persons, went over the river in a boat, and that a sailor, one of the persons in company, borrowed two dollars, and purchased the kids from a negro. That Collins was not m the boat. The prosecutor said since Spenlove was in jail, he offered to release him, if he would give up the old goat. That Spenlove *tated he had not the old goat, and knew nothing about it.
    Wood, sworn, stated in substance same as prosecutor.
    Witness called for defendants, stated that Collins was not in the boat on the day the persons went over the river ; that he was pro-sent when the sailor gave the kids to Mrs. Collins.
    His honor charged, that property found in the possession of one, is presumptive evidence of larceny ; but, if properly accounted for, will rebut that presumption. And that in relation to Spenlove, if you take his account of the matter, (and there is evidence of no other,) he should be acquitted.
    The jury acquitted Collins, and found Spenlove guilty.
    The counsel for the defendant appeals for a new trial, in the case of Spenlove, upon the ground, that his confession did not make out a case oí larceny ; and that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
    The above foregoing statement of the case, appears to me to be a correct one. E. H. BAY.
    Seymour, for motion.
    Attorney General, contra.
    Filed 14th Feb. 1837.
    
   Mr. Justice O’Neall

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion, that there is no evidence of the guilt of the prisoner. The only suspicious circumstance against him is, that he gave an account of the acquisition of the kids by a sailor, which may not be true. But there is no evidence that he ever had possession} .or in any way concerned in depriving the owner of them.

The motion for a new trial is granted.

JOHN B. O’NEALL.

We concur,

RICHARD GANTT,

JOSIAH J. EVANS.

J. S. RICHARDSON,  