
    10933
    STATE v. WHITE
    (112 S. E. 823)
    •Larceny—Evidence That Recently Stolen Property Was Pound in Buggy Owned by Defendant’s Wipe Held Insufficient for Submission to Jury.—In a prosecution for larceny of cotton, it was error to refuse to direct an acquittal on evidence that the cotton, shortly after it was stolen, was found in a buggy owned by defendant’s wife, and that defendant’s horse was attached to the buggy; there being no evidence that defendant was in possession of the buggy.
    Before Stiipp, J., Greenville, March, 1920.
    Reversed.
    Will White convicted of larceny and appeals.
    
      Messrs. Bonham & Price and Dean, Cothran & Wyche, for appellant,
    cite: Possession of stolen goods must be personal and exclusive to raise presumption of guilt: 25 Cyc., 139; 18 A. & E. Ene. E.; 17 R. C. E., 73; 22 Ga., 633; 95 S. E., 154; 101 Am. St. Rep., 474; 3 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 32.
    
      Mr. J. Robert Martin, Solicitor, for respondent.
    July 5, 1922.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

The appellant was indicted for larceny of cotton of the value of $25.00. There was evidence to show that the cotton was stolen from the field of Mr. F. W. Howard, that it was found in a buggy owned by the wife of the appellant, and that the appellant’s horse was attached to the buggy and tied to a tree. The horse, buggy, and cotton were carried to the house of Magistrate Moore, nearby. The cotton was found about 'midnight. About daylight the next morning the appellant and several members of his family appeared at the Magistrate’s house and said the horse and buggy had been stolen the night before, and that they had come to procure the assistance of the Magistrate in securing the possession of their stolen property. The State claimed that recently stolen property was found in the possession of the appellant, and relied solely on that possession for a conviction. The defendant asked for a direction of a verdict of not guilty. It was refused. The appellant appealed. This was error. There was no evidence to show that the appellant was in possession of the buggy that night, and therefore no evidence to show that he was in possession of the recently stolen cotton. The explanation he gave was reasonable and entirely uncontradicted.

The judgment is reversed.

Mr. Justice Cothran disqualified, having been of counsel in the case.  