People v. La Munion

• Citation: 64 Mich. 709,31 N.W. 593
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LA MUNION.
• Decision Date: 03 February 1887
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

64 Mich. 709
31 N.W. 593

PEOPLE
v.
LA MUNION.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

February 3, 1887.

Exceptions from Newaygo.

Indictment for larceny.

[31 N.W. 593]

Moses Taggart, Atty. Gen., for the People.

William D. Fuller, for defendant.

SHERWOOD, J.

The respondent was convicted, in the Newaygo circuit, at the last September term, of the larceny of a yoke of oxen of the value of $100. The case comes before us for review on exceptions before judgment.

[31 N.W. 594]

The record contains a bill of exceptions not including all the testimony, and from which it appears that the cattle stolen belonged to George Mowatt, a farmer who lived at the time in the township of Croton, in Newaygo county; that the cattle were last seen by the owner on the twenty-fifth day of August, 1885, at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon; that he missed them the next morning about 9 o'clock; that he did not find them until the next January, when he discovered them at Ravenna, many miles distant, in the county of Muskegon, in the possession of one Patterson; that the respondent lived in the township of Brooks, adjoining Croton, when the cattle were stolen, and but a few miles from Mowatt. The record also states that the people introduced witnesses from Muskegon, who gave testimony tending to show that on the twenty-eighth day of August, 1885, the respondent was seen in the city of Muskegon in possession of the stolen oxen, and was offering them for sale, and finally did sell them to a cattle dealer, who afterwards sold them to said Patterson, in whose possession Mr. Mowatt found them in January, 1886, at Ravenna.

At this stage of the case, counsel for respondent moved to strike out the testimony given by the Muskegon witnesses, on the ground that it was incompetent and immaterial; that no sufficient testimony had been given to warrant a verdict of larceny of the cattle. The court overruled the motion, and this ruling is made the basis for respondent's first and second assignments of error. We think these exceptions were not well taken. The people had not yet concluded their testimony in the case, and the testimony offered was competent to go to the jury. Besides, the testimony given by the Muskegon witnesses is not stated in the record, but only what it tended to show in the opinion of the circuit judge. Under such circumstances, it is impossible for this court to say error was committed in allowing the case to proceed. Error, to avail, must be made to appear upon the record, and not left in doubt.

Two additional witnesses, John Train and E.R. Baker, were sworn and examined on the part of the people, and who were acquainted with the respondent, and gave...