State v. Cardelli
State v. Cardelli, 19 Nev. 319 (1886)
Facts
•
The appellant argued that the unrecorded brands were unlawful and insufficient to establish ownership.
•
Appellant asked Zeigler Bros. to keep the sale secret from his brother.
•
Appellant wanted a sack to cut the brands out of the hides after the cattle were slaughtered.
•
Appellant's defense was that the cattle were branded by him and his brother in 1881.
•
Vail Bros. purchased cattle branded with 'J.C.' from Carlin.
•
Appellant kept the cattle in a barn, claiming he feared they would break the fence.
•
The court instructed the jury that the unrecorded brands were immaterial.
•
Appellant sold five head of cattle (three steers and two heifers) with the 'J.C.' brand to Zeigler Bros.
•
The defense's testimony conflicted with the prosecution's regarding the venting of cattle by Carlin and the identity of brands and marks.
•
Vail Bros. purchased the Carlin ranch, including cattle branded with 'J.C.' on the left hip and marked with a crop and split in the left ear.
•
Hugh Vail identified the hides from the slaughtered cattle as belonging to Vail Bros. based on the brands and ear-marks.
•
Appellant claimed the cattle sold to Zeigler and Hancock were branded by him and his brother in 1881 and were their property.
•
Hugh Vail identified the hides as belonging to Vail Bros. based on the brands and ear-marks.
•
Neither Carlin, Vail Bros., nor the appellant had their marks and brands recorded.
•
Vail Bros. offered a reward for the arrest and conviction of anyone stealing their cattle.
•
Appellant sold cattle with the 'J.C.' brand to Zeigler Bros.
Explore this Case with AI
Ask about this case, find precedent, analyze legal issues, or draft provisions. Powered by all precedential U.S. cases (10M+)
No credit card required
Key Holdings
•
The statute requiring brands to be recorded does not prevent the use of unrecorded brands as evidence of ownership in a criminal case of grand larceny.
•
The corpus delicti of grand larceny can be established by circumstantial evidence, including the identification of brands and marks on the hides of the stolen cattle, even without direct evidence of the loss.
Citations
State v. Cardelli, 19 Nev. 319 (1886)
Legal Reasoning
The court reasoned that the corpus delicti can be established by circumstantial evidence, and the identification of the hides with the Vail Bros.' brand was sufficient evidence of ownership. The court also held that the statute requiring brands to be recorded does not prevent the use of unrecorded brands as evidence of ownership in a criminal case. The court found no error in the district court's instructions and affirmed the judgment.
Outcome
The judgment of the district court was affirmed.
Want to Learn More About StrongSuit?
StrongSuit has advanced legal AI tools for deep insights & comprehensive analysis
No credit card required
Copyright 2026 StrongSuit AI, Inc. | All Rights Reserved