Book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1879. Excerpt: ... Heygood v. The State.] facts may require). This ruling may exact great particularity, and much difficulty of proof; but such are the requirements of the statute. Only the persons composing sewing machine companies, and their agents, engaging in, or carrying on the business, are embraced in the statute. The indictment is totally defective, and the verdict should have been set aside, and the judgment arrested.--Harris v. State, 50 Ala. 127, and authorities. We deem it unnecessary to particularly notice the charges requested, further than to say that if the other ingredients of the offence were proved, it would not necessarily follow that a sale of "two or three sewing machines is not sufficient to warrant a conviction for engaging in or carrying on the business of selling sewing machines." This is a question for the jury. We have not considered the demurrer, because the ruling upon it is not shown in the judgment-entry. Reversed and remanded. Let the defendant remain in custody until discharged by due course of law. Heygood v. The State. Larceny of an Outstanding Crop. 1. An indictment laying property in a servant is insufficient.--A superintendent of another's plantation is the servant of the employer; and an indictment for larceny, which charges that the corn stolen was the property of such superintendent, is insufficient. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lowndes. Tried before the Hon. James Q. Smith. At the fall term, 1876, of the Circuit Court of Lowndes county, the defendant was indicted for the larceny of a part of an outstanding crop of corn, alleged to be the property of S. A. Satterwhite. The defendant pleaded, "not guilty." It was proven that the defendant took and carried away a bushel of corn which grew, and was standing, on the plantation belonging to the estate of J. W....