Anderson v. Com.

• Decision Date: 25 April 1896
• Parties: ANDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

35 S.W. 542

ANDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 25, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Harrison county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Dan Anderson was convicted of feloniously breaking into a dwelling and stealing certain personal property, and appeals. Affirmed.

Blanton & Berry and J. H. Dorman, for appellant.

W. S Taylor, for the Commonwealth.

PAYNTER J.

The accused was indicted for feloniously breaking the dwelling house of W. D. Urmston, and feloniously taking away a watch and ring, etc. Upon the trial the jury found him guilty, and fixed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of six years and six months. It is claimed the judgment should be reversed (1) because of the insufficiency of the evidence to warrant the verdict; (2) misconduct of the commonwealth's attorney in arguing the case before the jury. Urmston, on the trial, testified: That on his road to church he met the accused. That the accused seemed to be noticing who was in the conveyance which he was driving. On his return home he found that one of the upstairs windows had been opened by hoisting it with a part of pitchfork. That the wire screen in the window had been taken out, the room entered, and the watch, ring, etc., taken out of the house. The witness could not say that window was closed when they started to church, except that he knew he and his family were particular to fasten up the house when they started away. The watch was shortly found in the possession of a boy, who testified he obtained it from the accused by giving him in exchange for it a Barlow knife, and a promise of 20 cents and 13 marbles; that the trade was made behind a storehouse at Lair's station. Kellar Brand testified the accused was working at his father's house, and that he found the ring near a path leading from his father's house to the barn. The accused testified that he did not break the dwelling house, or steal the property, and that he did not let the boy have the watch, etc. There was evidence tending to establish the guilt of the accused. The jury were the judges of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. We cannot invade the province of the jury. Besides, we think the evidence warranted the jury in finding a verdict of guilty. During the argument of the case the commonwealth's attorney said: "He [the defendant] is no boy; he is no spring chicken; he has already served a...