Chelton v. State
| Decision Date | 16 February 1877 |
| Citation | 45 Md. 564 |
| Parties | JAMES CHELTON v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Somerset County.
The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.
The cause was submitted to BARTOL, C.J., BOWIE, GRASON, MILLER and ALVEY, J.
Thomas S. Hodson, John H. Handy and John W Crisfield, for the appellant.
Attorney General Gwinn, for the appellee.
The appellant was indicted and convicted for the larceny of " a set of harness, " the property of Nathan J. P. Tull. The questions presented by his appeal arise upon seven bills of exception, taken to the rulings of the Circuit Court on the admission of evidence offered in behalf of the prisoner, and will be disposed of in their order.
First Exception.--There was no error in the ruling stated in this exception. The evidence offered was not per se admissible, being altogether irrelevant and immaterial.
In the exercise of its discretion, the Court required the prisoner's counsel to explain its purpose, and afforded them an opportunity of stating in what manner they proposed to connect it, by other evidence which they expected to produce, with the questions at issue, or proper for the consideration of the jury, this they declined to do; and failed to show its pertinency. In our opinion the testimony offered was irrelevant, and we therefore affirm the ruling of the Circuit Court in this exception.
Second Exception.--To understand the question raised by this exception, it is necessary to refer to the evidence which had been offered on the part of the State. It had been proved by Nathan J. P. Tull, that in the autumn of 1874, he lost a set of harness worth about twenty dollars, which was taken by some one from his carriage house in Somerset County, near "Marion Station," where he had placed it. In the summer of 1875, he was notified by one William Outen that he had the harness at George Tull's, where he, Outen, lived, and witness went to George Tull's, found his harness hanging in the kitchen and carried it home. William Outen testified that about the last of June, or last of August, 1875, one Oliver Merrill came to the house of George Tull, where he was in the habit of visiting, and asked witness to go with him to see the prisoner, James Chelton; that the next morning witness and Merrill went to the house of the prisoner's father, a distance of several miles and there saw the prisoner. That Merrill told the prisoner that he could not pay him, the prisoner, for the harness he had sold him, Merrill, and as he had requested payment several times, and he, Merrill, could not comply he desired to return the harness to the prisoner; that the prisoner then said he had no use for the harness, and asked witness, Outen, if he did not want it, and requested witness to go to Merrill's house in Worcester County and get the harness, which witness did, and took the harness to George Tull's house, and subsequently informed Mr. Nathan Tull he had his harness, who afterwards went to George Tull's house and got it.
Oliver Merrill testified that in the autumn of 1874, the prisoner sold him a set of harness, which he had not paid for, and by the prisoner's direction delivered it to William Outen, as Outen testified. Witness also testified to the same conversation of prisoner, at the house of prisoner's father, which Outen detailed. He further testified that prior to the sale of the harness to him by the prisoner, he received a message from the prisoner inquiring if he wished to buy a set of harness, and appointing to see him at George Tull's, on a certain morning; that prisoner was early in the morning of that day at George Tull's, and witness saw him, but did not speak to him at that time; that prisoner disappeared and delaying to return, witness concluded to start, that he saw George Edward Tull, a son of George Tull, who lived at his father's, hitch his, witness' horse to the buggy and rode off, but witness did not know why or where he was going; that witness came out of the house of George Tull, and saw the carriage down the lane, out of which he, witness was to go, that he and James Tull walked down the road or lane, about a quarter of a mile from the house, till they came to the buggy, where they found the prisoner, and that the harness was under the seat of the buggy; that the prisoner asked witness when he came up, what he would give for the harness, when witness asked the prisoner what he asked for it, who replied that he might have it for sixteen dollars; that after some talk witness agreed to give fifteen dollars for the harness, and took it home with him. Witness did not see George Edward Tull at the house at that time, but thought he was uot far off.
James Tull testified that on the occasion spoken of by Merrill, he went with Merrill to the buggy down the lane, and heard the conversation between Merrill and the prisoner, as testified to by Merrill, and that the prisoner sold the harness to Merrill for fifteen dollars, Merrill gave the prisoner fifty cents on it, which was all the money he saw paid.
It appeared in proof that the witnesses Outen and Merrill were nephews of George Tull; and that James Tull and George Edward Tull were sons of George Tull, and lived with their father, who had also two unmarried daughters living with him.
The witnesses Outen and Merrill both stated on cross-examination, that being approached by John O. Lankford and asked for what amount they would leave the State, before the meeting of Court; they had expressed their willingness, if the prisoner's father would pay them two hundred dollars each, to leave the State before Court. The State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. Belknap
...whether defendant had furnished them with transportation. Kirby's Digest, § 3138; 58 Ark. 479; 43 N.E. 168; 2 Walk. 482; 34 Ark. 480; 45 Md. 564; 73 270; 61 Ga. 379; 58 Vt. 409; 76 Va. 1012. 3. It was error to admit evidence of witnesses that five or six months previous to the accident they......