People v. Cloud

HOUSER, J.

From a judgment of conviction of the crime of grand theft, with two prior convictions of felony, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial,

[793]

defendant has appealed to this court. The action was tried before the court sitting without a jury.

From the evidence introduced on the trial, it appears that an oriental rug which had been rented by, and which was in the possession of, William Pox Film Corporation, was stolen.

The first point presented by appellant is that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment in that the prosecution failed to prove that the rug was taken from William Pox Film Corporation without its permission. In that regard each of two witnesses, one known as a “set dresser, ’ ’ and the other as assistant set dresser, ’ ’ who were in charge and possession of the rug, testified that no permission was given by him to defendant to take the rug.

In the case of

People

v.

Hutchings,

8 Cal. App. 550, 555 [97 Pac. 325, 327], where a similar question was incidentally involved, the court said: “The father of the owner of the steer being in control of the cattle at the time of the larceny, owing to the illness of his son, it was proper that he should be permitted to testify that he had not given permission to anyone to take the steer. If it had been taken with his consent there would have been no crime committed.”

See, also,

State

v.

Adams,

115 N. C. 775 [20 S. E. 722];

Hudspeth

v.

Commonwealth,

195 Ky. 4 [241 S. W. 71],