People v. Williams

Decision Date29 November 1871
Citation24 Mich. 156
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesThe People v. Samuel Williams and another

Heard November 3, 1871 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Exceptions certified from the recorder's court of the city of Detroit.

Samuel and Abram Williams were charged, on the information of the prosecuting attorney of Wayne county, before the recorder's court of the city of Detroit, with the larceny of two thousand six hundred dollars, the property of Bernard Williams. They were convicted, and a bill of exceptions was settled and certified to this court before judgment, under the statute.

Upon the empaneling of a jury for the trial of the cause, it appeared that the jurors for the term were drawn by the clerk and sheriff, and that eleven of the jurors on the panel were summoned by venire served by the sheriff, for which reasons counsel for defendants challenged the array, which challenge was overruled by the court; to this ruling of the court, counsel for defendants excepted. Upon the trial of the issue, the counsel for the people gave in evidence testimony which tended to show:

That in the beginning of January, A. D. 1871, the respondents, Samuel and Abram Williams, who were brothers of Bernard Williams, were at the house of said Bernard, in the city of New Orleans, and state of Louisiana, and feloniously took therefrom the sum of twenty-six hundred dollars; that this was on the morning of Friday, and that on the evening of the same day respondents left New Orleans and came direct, except a few hours' stop at Calumet, on Sunday, to the city of Detroit, in the state of Michigan. There was also testimony tending to show that after the arrival in Detroit of Bernard Williams, he met the defendants in said city, and charged them with robbing him of the said money, and with having the same; that some time afterwards, and while Bernard was in jail, charged by the defendant Abram Williams with perjury in making the complaint in this cause, both of the defendants said, that if the said Bernard Williams would take back his complaint in this cause or his charge at the police court (meaning said complaint and the charge therein contained), and say that said two thousand six hundred dollars was claimed by him in a partnership transaction or business, and that the said defendants did not steal said money, they would give him back his money, pay his expenses, and he could go home to New Orleans; that in relation to the same matter the defendant Samuel said, that if he, Bernard, should do this, it would yet cost something to get him out of jail, but that he, Samuel, would give in addition thereto, fifty dollars if Bernard could be induced to make such statement as aforesaid. This was all the testimony produced by the people to show that the money alleged to have been stolen, was brought into said city.

As to the ownership of said twenty-six hundred dollars, Bertha Williams, wife of Bernard, testified on her direct examination: "I told them (respondents) I had twenty-six hundred dollars that was my own money. I had saved it." On her cross-examination, she testified that the money was her husband's, her son's and her own; that two thousand dollars of it belonged to her husband and herself, and six hundred to her son; that she did not know how much of it belonged to her; that the boy was under seventeen years of age, was a child by her former husband, and made his part of the money by peddling; that she earned her money by keeping boarding-house, and her husband his, by trading; that she kept all the money together, and had been saving it to buy a house with; that her husband gave her over twenty-six hundred dollars to buy a house with; that he (her husband) gave her fifteen hundred dollars by draft.

Bernard Williams was called by the prosecution, and among other matters testified, that two revolvers were missing with the money, and that a license was taken from the same box in which the money was kept; that he had seen the license in Detroit in possession of a man named Bitterman; that Bitterman brought it to the house where witness lived in Detroit, and took out and read the paper, and asked the witness in the presence of his wife and another woman, "Do you know that paper?" and that he, witness, had heard Samuel (meaning respondent) say in police court that Bitterman came to Detroit with them (meaning respondents); that Bitterman stopped in Detroit at Wolf Williams', a brother of respondents, and witness saw him at Samuel Williams'; that he had seen Bitterman at the market with defendants; that Bitterman stopped also at Samuel Williams' house; that witness had seen defendants and Bitterman frequently together, and that they were together the principal part of the time after they arrived in Detroit; that Samuel's statement with reference to Bitterman's coming to Detroit with them, was made in the police court on examination of defendants on this charge. It further appeared that Bitterman arrived at New Orleans on the day defendant left for Detroit, and was not at the house of Bernard Williams.

All the testimony concerning Bitterman was taken subject to the objection of the defendants, and the objection overruled by the court; to which ruling of the court the defendants excepted.

The recorder was requested by the counsel for respondent to charge the jury:

That the statute under which defendants are charged is unconstitutional and void;

That the statute under which said defendants are charged does not relate to money, but only to personal property, as distinguished from money, and the defendants must be acquitted;

That there is no evidence in the case that the said defendants brought any part of the money into this state;

That the prosecution must prove that some distinct separate part of the money in question, is the property of Bernard Williams, and if the proof is that the money in question was owned by Bertha Williams, or by her and Bernard Williams jointly, the defendants must be acquitted; which requests the recorder refused, and the defendants excepted.

The recorder then charged the jury, that the statute under which the information is brought is constitutional;

That the jury have a right to infer, from the facts and circumstances proved in the case, that the defendants brought the money, alleged to have been stolen, into the city of Detroit;

That if the prosecuting witness let his wife have a part of the sum of two thousand six hundred dollars to be kept by her with money of her own, and used by them afterwards in the purchase of property in their joint names, though the money was all mingled together, so that the part furnished by the prosecuting witness could not be distinguished from that of his wife, then the allegation of ownership in the information as to the part thus deposited with the wife, is sufficiently proved, and will, if all the other material facts are proved, justify a conviction; to which instruction the defendants excepted.

Verdict set aside and a new trial ordered.

J. Logan Chipman and Geo. V. N. Lothrop, for defendants.

Dwight May, Attorney-General, for the people.

Cooley, J. Christiancy and Graves, JJ., Campbell, Ch. J. concurred.

OPINION

Cooley, J.:

The first exception in this case is, that the jurors were summoned by the sheriff of Wayne county instead of by an officer of the metropolitan police. There is no claim that the jurors were improperly drawn, or that there was any improper conduct by the sheriff. The only complaint is that the wrong officer summoned them. We think there is nothing in this objection. If the jurors, after being properly drawn, had appeared without being summoned at all, no objection could have been taken afterwards; and at most the action of the sheriff can only be treated as a nullity. It is immaterial to this case, therefore, which officer was entitled, under the statute, to serve the venire.

The evidence of the possession of the license by Bitterman, and his exhibition of the same in Detroit, and what he said about it, does not appear to my brethren to have been admissible. These things were no part of the res gestoe; they were res inter alios, occurring afterwards, and the purpose in proving them could only be to afford an inference that the defendants stole the money. But such an inference would be very remote, and the evidence is liable to so many other inferences consistent with innocence, that the court cannot look upon it as relevant. It may have done no mischief, but there is always danger in admitting evidence the tendency of which is merely to suggest suspicion while it really proves nothing. For this error the verdict should be set aside.

I have no doubt that the word "property," as employed in the statute, would include money. Money is property; the word used here was the most general that could be employed, and the purpose undoubtedly was to cover every thing which is the subject of larceny.

Nor do I think it true that there was no evidence to go to the jury that the money was brought within the state. It was shown that the defendants came here immediately after the larceny, and that in this state they undertook to negotiate for the return of the money, and to repay it. This was not conclusive, but it afforded a strong presumption of their possession of the money here.

Nor does it seem to me that there is any valid objection to the charge of the court regarding the ownership of the money by Bernard Williams. The charge in effect was, that his delivering his money to his wife, and the putting the same with her own so that it could not be distinguished, in the expectation that it was to be employed for a common purchase would not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Grant County Fire Protection District No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 14 maart 2002
    ...60 Cal. 12, 24, 1882 WL 1675 (1882); Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 49-50, 1872 WL 1120 (1872); People v. Williams, 24 Mich. 156, 1871 WL 3046, at *5 (1871); Ward v. Morris & Nicholson, 4 H. & McH. 330, 1799 WL 233 (1799); see also Saenz, 526 U.S. at 526, 119 S.Ct. 1518 (Thomas, J., d......
  • The State v. Mintz
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 6 juni 1905
    ...as decisive of the question now under discussion; however, it may be further said that in State v. Butler, supra, the case of People v. Williams, 24 Mich. 156, is cited approval, and gives full support to the correctness of the conclusions announced by this court upon this statute. The prov......
  • Howell v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • 12 januari 1948
    ...pp. 555-6; State v. Ellis, 3 Conn. 185, 8 Am.Dec. 175; Worthington v. State, 58 Md. 403, 42 Am.Rep. 338; People v. Wil- Hams, 24 Mich. 156, 9 Am.Rep. 119 (opinion by Judge Cooley). The defendant contends that he was not "found" in Westmoreland county in the sense meant by the statute becaus......
  • State v. Butler
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 oktober 1877
    ...be indicted and punished therefor in another State, into which he has brought the stolen property. Sec. 3, p. 511, Wag. Stat.; People v. Williams, 24 Mich. 156; State v. Hemmaker, 12 Mo. 453; State v. Williams, 35 Mo. 229; State v. Bennett, 14 Iowa 479; Hamilton v. State, 11 Ohio 435; Watso......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT