Berneker v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtHARRISON
Citation59 N.W. 372,40 Neb. 810
PartiesBERNEKER v. STATE.
Decision Date05 June 1894

40 Neb. 810
59 N.W. 372

BERNEKER
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 5, 1894.



Syllabus by the Court.

[59 N.W. 372]

1. “An assignment of error as to the giving en masse of certain instructions will be considered no further than to ascertain that any one of such instructions was properly given.” Hiatt v. Kinkaid (Neb.) 58 N. W. 700.

2. The language of an instruction with reference to the value of goods received, the prisoner being on trial for the alleged crime of receiving stolen goods, examined, and held not erroneous or objectionable.

3. Character, according to its legal construction, is a fact, and means the estimate in which the individual is held in the community in which he lives; and it is not error on the part of a trial court to exclude the knowledge of a witness, purporting to have been gained by personal acquaintance or dealings with the individual whose character is in question, as only the general reputation of such individual is admissible.

4. The action of the court in sustaining objections of counsel for the state to questions put to a witness on behalf of plaintiff in error examined, and held not erroneous.

5. An assignment of error in the following terms, “The court erred in admitting evidence of defendant receiving property at dates subsequent to the receiving on which and for which he was convicted,” held to be too indefinite in that it is too general, and failed to designate any particular or specific portion of the testimony of which complaint is made.

6. The indorsement of the name of a witness on the copy of the information contained in the transcript of the case raises the presumption that such indorsement was made at the proper time, and, in the absence of proof to the contrary, such presumption will prevail.

7. “Where a question is asked a witness, to which objection is made, which is sustained, the party desiring the evidence must offer to prove the facts sought to be introduced in evidence.” Mathews v. State, 27 N. W. 234, 19 Neb. 330.

8. An affidavit which it is claimed was used in the hearing of a motion for a new trial, but the record does not disclose whether it was used or presented at the hearing of the motion, cannot be considered for any purpose in this court unless presented by bill of exceptions, and thus made a part of the record in the case.

9. The evidence examined, and held sufficient to support the verdict.


Error to district court, Douglas county; Scott, Judge.

One Berneker was convicted of receiving stolen property, and brings error. Affirmed.

[59 N.W. 373]

Weaver & Giller, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. H. Hastings, Atty. Gen., for the State.


HARRISON, J.

During the February, A. D. 1894, term of the district court of Douglas county, on March 2d, there was an information filed in said court, charging the plaintiff in error with the crime of receiving stolen property,--certain goods and merchandise of the alleged total valuation of $90.25. A trial was had to the court and a jury, which resulted in a verdict of guilty, the value of the property being assessed in the verdict at the sum of $35.15. Motion for a new trial was filed for the plaintiff in error, which, on hearing, was overruled, and the plaintiff sentenced to a term of three years in the penitentiary, to reverse which judgment and sentence these proceedings in error were instituted.

The first assignment of error which is urged in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error herein is stated as follows: “The court erred in instructing the jury that, before they could convict the defendant, they must find the value of the goods to be thirty-five dollars, or upwards.” The exceptions to the instructions were couched in the following language: “The defendant excepts to instructions numbered three, four, five, and six, given by the court on its own motion.” And the fourth ground on the motion for a new trial stated: “The court erred in giving instructions three, four, five, and six of its own motion.” And in the petition in error, wherein the plaintiff in error complains of the instructions, the same words are used as in the motion for a new trial, and the instructions grouped together in one paragraph of the assignments. It is not claimed that any of the instructions are erroneous, or even defective, except three, and an examination of them discloses that some, if not all, are entirely applicable to the facts developed in the case on trial, and free from error, which brings this assignment within the rule announced in Hiatt v. Kinkaid (Neb.) 58 N. W. 700, in which case it was held by this court that “an assignment of error, as to the giving en masse of certain instructions, will be considered no further than to ascertain that any of such instructions was properly given. See, also, McDonald v. Bowman, 58 N. W. 704, and Jenkins v. Mitchell (since decided) 59 N. W. 90, and in which the rule above quoted was approved and followed. This would effectually dispose of this assignment, and obviate any necessity for further consideration of it, but, inasmuch as the plaintiff in error, in his motion for a new trial, has further complained of this same instruction No. 3 in the following words, “That the court erred in instructing the jury that, in order to find defendant guilty, they must find the value of the property received by him to be $35.00 or upwards,” we will give it further notice. The instruction complained of reads as follows: “The facts necessary to be established by the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to warrant a conviction of defendant, are: That the defendant at or about the time named in the information, and at and within the county of Douglas and state of Nebraska, received the goods described in the information, or some of them; that the same were the goods of the Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Railroad Co.; that the goods received by defendant had been stolen; that defendant received the goods knowing them to have been stolen, and with the intent to defraud the owner, the Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Railroad Co., and that the value of the goods was $35.00 or upwards. If these facts have not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, you should acquit the defendant; if all these facts have been established beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence, you should convict the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • City of Chadron v. Glover
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • February 5, 1895
    ...Mitchell, 40 Neb. 664, 59 N. W. 90;Murphy v. Gould, 40 Neb. 728, 59 N. W. 383;Armann v. Buel, 40 Neb. 803, 59 N. W. 515;Berneker v. State, 40 Neb. 810, 59 N. W. 372;Hewitt v. Banking Co., 40 Neb. 820, 59 N. W. 693. Moreover, the record discloses no exception to any instruction given or requ......
  • Gravely v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • October 1, 1895
    ...Mitchell, 40 Neb. 664, 59 N. W. 90;Murphy v. Gould, 40 Neb. 728, 59 N. W. 383;Armann v. Buel, 40 Neb. 803, 59 N. W. 515;Berneker v. State, 40 Neb. 810, 59 N. W. 372;Hewitt v. Banking Co., 40 Neb. 820, 59 N. W. 693;Havens v. Fuel Co., 41 Neb. 157, 59 N. W. 681;Rea v. Bishop, 41 Neb. 202, 59 ......
  • Fishback v. Bramel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 27, 1896
    ...173; Wolcott v. Bachman, 3 Wyo., 336; Wyo. L. & T. Co. v. Holliday, id., 386; Newmarks v. Marks, 28 P. 960; Wilson v. Lucas, 78 Tex. 292; 59 N.W. 372; 108 N.C. 514; 57 N.W. 928; 60 N.W. 320; 38 Ind. 13; 19 Pa. 235; 71 Cal. 223; 52 Minn. 51; 54 Minn. 32; 110 Ind. 203; 60 Ind. 154; 54 Cal. 58......
  • State ex rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health, No. 31168.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1933
    ...impressed by nature or habit on a person, which distinguishes him from others. Cox v. Strickland, 101 Ga. 482; Berneker v. State, 40 Neb. 810; Keith v. State, 152 S.W. 1029, 127 Tenn. 40; Greer v. Active, etc., 99 Conn. 266; Feibelman v. Fire Ins. Co., 108 Ala. 180; Glove v. State, 200 Ala.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • City of Chadron v. Glover
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • February 5, 1895
    ...Mitchell, 40 Neb. 664, 59 N. W. 90;Murphy v. Gould, 40 Neb. 728, 59 N. W. 383;Armann v. Buel, 40 Neb. 803, 59 N. W. 515;Berneker v. State, 40 Neb. 810, 59 N. W. 372;Hewitt v. Banking Co., 40 Neb. 820, 59 N. W. 693. Moreover, the record discloses no exception to any instruction given or requ......
  • Gravely v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • October 1, 1895
    ...Mitchell, 40 Neb. 664, 59 N. W. 90;Murphy v. Gould, 40 Neb. 728, 59 N. W. 383;Armann v. Buel, 40 Neb. 803, 59 N. W. 515;Berneker v. State, 40 Neb. 810, 59 N. W. 372;Hewitt v. Banking Co., 40 Neb. 820, 59 N. W. 693;Havens v. Fuel Co., 41 Neb. 157, 59 N. W. 681;Rea v. Bishop, 41 Neb. 202, 59 ......
  • Fishback v. Bramel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 27, 1896
    ...173; Wolcott v. Bachman, 3 Wyo., 336; Wyo. L. & T. Co. v. Holliday, id., 386; Newmarks v. Marks, 28 P. 960; Wilson v. Lucas, 78 Tex. 292; 59 N.W. 372; 108 N.C. 514; 57 N.W. 928; 60 N.W. 320; 38 Ind. 13; 19 Pa. 235; 71 Cal. 223; 52 Minn. 51; 54 Minn. 32; 110 Ind. 203; 60 Ind. 154; 54 Cal. 58......
  • State ex rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health, No. 31168.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 6, 1933
    ...impressed by nature or habit on a person, which distinguishes him from others. Cox v. Strickland, 101 Ga. 482; Berneker v. State, 40 Neb. 810; Keith v. State, 152 S.W. 1029, 127 Tenn. 40; Greer v. Active, etc., 99 Conn. 266; Feibelman v. Fire Ins. Co., 108 Ala. 180; Glove v. State, 200 Ala.......
  • 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