State v. Tullock

Citations

• 118 Wash. 496
• 203 P. 932
• 1922 Wash. LEXIS 649

Syllabus

<p>Larceny (18) — Evidence—Ownership of Property — Statutes as to Recorded Brands. In a prosecution for tbe larceny of logs, the owner’s mark tbereon is admissible for tbe purpose of proving ownership, though it had never been recorded in compliance with the provisions of Rem. Code, § 7092, since that statute does not restrict evidence of ownership to recorded brands or marks.</p> <p>Same (25-2) — Value of Property — Evidence—Sufficiency. In a prosecution for the larceny of logs, their value is sufficiently proven by evidence of the price obtained on a sale by the one who purloined them.</p> <p>Same (28) — Taking of Property — Felonious Intent — Evidence —Sufficiency. The felonious intent of the finder of logs adrift in taking possession and selling them is sufficiently shown by evidence that the logs had a private brand and that there weré no other logs with the same marks, and that the finder had reasonable means of knowing ownership.</p> <p>Criminal Law (458, 459) — Punishment—Gross Misdemeanors— Statutes. Under Rem. Code, § 2267, providing that one convicted of a gross misdemeanor may be punished both by imprisonment in the county jail and by a fine not exceeding $1,000, and under Id., §§ 2200, 2209, authorizing the commitment to custody of a defendant adjudged to pay a fine, which, on failure to pay, he shall work out at the rate of two dollars per day, the court has power, upon sentencing a defendant to a term of imprisonment and to pay a fine, to further provide that he should be committed to jail until the fine is satisfied according to law.</p>