JuL y TERM, 1856. SANDERS V. STATE. SANDERS
V.
THE STATE. In miademeanors, all persons who procure, partici.. pate in, or assent to the commi,sion of the crime, are regarded as principals and indictable as such. On indictment for obstructing the public road, the proof was, that there were ohs:ructions across the road : that they were caused by the felliug o timh .1' to build the defendant's house : that he was frequently about the premises and saw the obstructions, but made no effort for their removal—that he had employed a man to erect the house and had no control over the workmen; the jury found a verdict of guilty : As there was not a total want of evidence to sustain the verdict, this court should not set it aside. Appeal front the Circuit Court of Drew County. HON. THEODORIC F. SOR-BELLS, Circuit Judge. Cummins & Garland, for the appellant. Johnson, Att orney-General, for the State. ENGIASII, C. J. Benjamin F. [3,199 Sanders was indicted in the Drew circuit court for obstructing a public road by felling trees and timber across it. Upon the plea of not guilty he was tried by a jury, convicted and fined one cent. He moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence; the motion was overruled by the court, and he ex— cepted, and appealed. No instructions appear to have been asked, or given by the court to the jury. No question of law was reserved at the trial. This court is asked to decide merely whether the court below erred in overruling the motion for a new trial; or, in other
SANDERS V. STATE. VOL. 18 words, whether the evidence war-the logs out of the road so that wagons ranted the verdict? could pass. The timber belonged to The evidence, as set out in the bill of me until the house was finished. The exceptions, is substantially as follows: other timbers were put in the road by a The defendant admitted that the negro boy in my employ. I showed road which he was charged with ob-him where to put the timbers." structing was a public road and high-The above was all the testimony way. offered or introduced by the parties. Whitehead, a witness for the State, It was not necessary for the defend-testified that in the month of August, ant to have felled the timber across the 1854, he was at the place where some road himself, or for it to have been men were building a storehouse for de-done by his immediate direction, to fendant—beard defendant say he had make him responsible for the offense. hired Mr. Woodward to hew the tim-In misdemeanors, all persons who pro-bers for his house which he was build-cure, participate in, or assent to the ing. While there, witness saw several commission of the crime, are regarded pieces of timber in the road that ran as principals and indictable as such.' by the place where they were building For the purposes of this indictment, the storehouse. It was in Drew county. it must be inferred from the testimony The logs or pieces of timber remained that the premises, upon which the in the road for some five or six weeks. storehouse was erected, belonged to de-That defendant was unmarried, and fendant, or were under his control. He did not keep house, but lived with his employed the witness Sanders to erect mother. Witness did not see the logs the storehouse there, for him: and un-or timber put there. He did not know less it is inferred from this fact that who put them in the road. the defendant was the owner, or in Bush, on the part of the State, also control of the premises, we should testified that he saw a log lying across have to presume that he procured a the road, near the store of the defend-trespass to be committed on the land ant, but did not know who put it of some other perAon by causing the there. house to be erected there. But it is John IV. Sanders, a witness fairer to presume from the evidence for defendant, testified as follows : that he had the lawful control of the EICIO*1 ' 1 '"The defendant employed me premises, than that he was a tres-to build a storehouse for him. He passer. agreed to give me seventy-five dollars Assuming then, from the facts in for the same when completed. De-proof, that defendant was in the lawful fendant hired a Mr. Woodward for control of the premises, by which the me, at my request. Defendant had no public road ran, and that he em-control over me, or Mr. Woodward, or ployed Sanders to erect a storehouse any of the hands engaged in building there for his use, it was his duty as the storehouse. Defendant was at the a good citizen to see that in the place frequently while the house was *erection of the house upon his [3'201 being constructed, but had no control premises the public road was not ob-over it. That the tree was felled by structed: and if casually obstructed in Mr. Woodward. I do not recollect cutting the necessary timber, upon the whether defendant was present at the premises, for the erection of the build-time or not, but he was there soon ing, it was his duty to see that it was afterwards, and he took the top of the 1. That all are principals, see Crocker v. State, tree out of the road, but did not take 49-61 and cases cited.
JULY TERM, 1856. immediately removed. It seems from the evidence that the defendant was frequently at the place where the store was being erected, and where the timber was lying in the road. That some of the logs lay in the road for as long as five or six weeks. That he was there immediately after one of the hands had cut a tree across the road, and removed the top of it front the road himself, but the trunk remained as an obstruction. There is no proof that he made any other effort, or gave any directions to have the obstructions removed, or remonstrated witii the workmen in reference to them. We think, under these circumstances, the jury were warranted in inferrieg his acquiescence in the obstructions. It is true that the evidence, taken altogether, does not establish the criminal agency of the defendant in throwing the timber acrosa the road, but there was evidence from which the jury might have inferred his acquiescence in the obstructions, and criminal neglect in their removal. There is not a total want of testimony to sustain the verdict, and tihe jury being the, judges of its weight and sufficiency, 'we coula not set aside the verdict without encroaching upon their constitutional province. The witness Sanders seemed disposed to take the entire responsibility of the offense upon himself, but however guilty he may have been, the defendant was not the less culpable if he participated or acquiesced in the crime: and we cannot hold that he was excusable where there is ground to infer from the evidence, that he procured men to come upon his premises to erect a building for him, and stood by and permitted them to obstruct the public road, in doing his work, without remonstrance, or effbrt to prevent it, or to remove the obstructions. The judgment of the court below is affirmed. Absent, Hon. C. C. Scott. Cited:-21-219; 45-365.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.