Hendry v. State

Citations

• 39 Fla. 235

Syllabus

<p>1. In the prosecution of an accused for larceny of cattle a witness-for the prosecution who stated that he was familiar with the rules and customs of stock men in the county in which the crime was alleged to have been committed was asked on cross-examination if it had not been the custom among cattle owners of the county for many years to drive to market and-sell the cattle of their neighbors -when they were on fiiendiy terms with each other, without any special authority for so doing, and with the understanding that they would be paid by the men who drove the cattle such price as they could obtain for them in the market, with or without a reasonable-compensation for the driving, and, on objection by the State, the question was excluded. Held, That it not having beeu made to appear, and there being no offer to show, that the-accused was a cattle owner in ihe county on friendly terms with the owner of the cattle alleged to have been stolen, or in any situation to avail himself of the custom sought to be proven, there was no error in the ruling.</p> <p>2. There can be no legal custom to justify one man in stealing the property of another, as such a custom would be contrary to law and bad.</p> <p>•3. The testimony examined and held to be sufficient to sustain the verdict.</p>