Lockhard

The appellant was indicted for stealing cattle, and convicted of the crime of grand larceny.

When considered as abstract legal propositions, disconnected from the context, there is some want of precision, and even some inaccuracy in the portions of the judge’s charge complained of in the first point discussed by appellant’s counsel. There can be no possible doubt upon the testimony that the conversion of the cattle, if there was any, was with a felonious intent. Taken in connection with the testimony, and that *220 portion of the charge which immediately precedes the first passage complained of, and with other portions of the charge, and seyeral very pointed instructions upon the same point given at the request of the prisoner, we think there can be scarcely a possibility that the jury could have been misled by the inaccuracies, or have misapprehended the law applicable to the case. As to the instructions asked by the prisoner and refused, some of them, if correct as legal propositions, were abstract, and not justified by the state of the evidence; others required modifications, and others were more than once substantially given in less objectionable language, in the charge of…