People v. Neufeld
| Decision Date | 27 November 1900 |
| Citation | 165 N.Y. 43,58 N.E. 786 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. NEUFELD. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from criminal term, New York county.
William Neufeld was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
William F. Howe, for appellant.
Charles E. Le Barbier, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the People.
The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree in having taken the life of one Annie Kronman on the 7th of August, 1899, and was on such conviction sentenced to death. The details of the crime, as shown by the testimony of the prosecution, for none was offered on behalf of the defense, briefly are the following: The deceased, a married woman, lived with her husband in the rear flat on the third story of No. 266 West Thirty-Fifth street, in New York City. The husband was in the produce commission business in Reed street. The husband and wife were the sole occupants of the flat. Mr. Kronman left his apartment for his place of business between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning of Monday, August 7, 1899, and returned between 6 and 7 in the evening of that day. On entering his apartment from the main hall of the building he discovered his wife, the deceased, lying unconscious on the floor. She had received several wounds in the head, evidently from some sharp instrument. A hatchet lay beside her, on which was apparently congealed or dried blood. The deceased's head was covered with blood, and there was blood on the floor. Her husband immediately called in the other tenants, and notice was given to a police officer in the vicinity. The deceased was removed in an ambulance to Roosevelt Hospital, where she died that night, without having regained consciousness. An autopsy disclosed that she had received seven incised wounds on the head and face from a sharp instrument. One wound was on the left jaw extending from the corner of the mouth. The skull was fractured, and the brain tissue exposed in two places. Her husband, when he first entered the apartment, found the pocketbook of the deceased, and a bag in which she had been in the habit of keeping her jewelry, lying empty on the washstand in which they were usually kept. He had seen his wife wear this jewelry on Sunday, the day previous. The character of the wounds showed conclusively that they were not self-inflicted. The abstraction of the jewelry indicated that theft was the motive of the crime committed. Suspicion did not attach to the defendant until some 10 days later, when the police officers learned that he had been seen in possession of the stolen jewelry during the preceding week, and had displayed it to many parties, and had pawned or sold several pieces. Upon the discovery of these facts the defendant was arrested, indicted, and put on trial.
The testimony shows that the defendant was a distant cousin of the deceased, and on the ‘Jewish Easter’ (Passover?) in April previous to the murder he attended a small party or entertainment given by the deceased and her husband at their apartment. On this occasion the deceased wore her jewelry, and, indeed, two pieces of it were then given to her by her husband. This jewelry, which was recovered, and produced on the trial, consisted of a diamond crescent pin, a pair of diamond earrings, a gold chain and watch, and another chain, to which was attached a gold dollar. The possession of this property by the deceased previous to the murder was proved, not only by the testimony of the husband, but by that of three of her friends. All these witnesses identified the jewelry produced in court as being that which they had known the deceased to wear. A manufacturing jeweier was produced, who testified to the sale of the identical articles to the husband of the deceased on two occasions, and recongnized his hall mark upon them. On Friday, August 11th, the defendant showed the jewelry, or pieces of it, to several witnesses in a saloon in Houston street, and endeavored to dispose of it. He sent the chain with a gold dollar attached to be pawned by one of the witnesses, and obtained five dollars thereon. On that day he pawned one of the diamond earrings with a witness-Benjamin Freedman, a pawnbroker-for $100, and at the same time told him that he had pawned the other with Simpson for $125 on the day before. On the same day he sold for $10 the pawn ticket for the earringpawned with Simpson to another witness, who, on that day, redeemed it from pawn, the defendant at the time remaining outside the pawn office. On the 16th he pawned the diamond crescent pin with another pawnbroker-also a witness-for $185. This pin he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ilgenfritz
...but may be shown, as any other controverted fact, by evidence circumstantial in its nature. [People v. Neufeld, 165 N.Y. 43, l. c. 47, 58 N.E. 786.] the proof should be such that the inference may be fairly drawn that the clothing was worn at the time and that the bloodstains were there rec......
-
People v. Smith
...its potency and the weight which was to be given to it by the jury, but did not reach the question of its competency. People v. Neufeld, 165 N. Y. 43, 47,58 N. E. 786;People v. Wennerholm, 166 N. Y. 567, 573,60 N. E. 259;Greenfield v. People, 85 N. Y. 75, 82,39 Am. Rep. 636. 3. A witness fo......
-
State v. Ilgenfritz
...by positive or direct evidence, but it may be shown, as any other controverted fact, by evidence circumstantial in its nature. People v. Neufeld, 165 N. Y. 43, loc. cit. 47, 58 N. E. 786. However, the proof should be such that the inference may be fairly drawn that the clothing was worn at ......
-
People v. Gilmour
...the exhibit competent evidence. The absence of direct and positive proof went to the weight, not to the competency. People v. Neufeld, 165 N.Y. 43, 47, 58 N.E. 786; People v. Bonier, 189 N.Y. 108, 81 N.E. In People v. Sands, 46 Misc.2d 981, 260 N.Y.S.2d 492 (App.Term, 1st Dept.), the arrest......