Commonwealth v. Lindie

Decision Date04 February 1942
Docket Number194-1941,195-1941
Citation147 Pa.Super. 335,24 A.2d 39
PartiesCommonwealth v. Lindie et al., Appellants
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

Argued October 29, 1941.

Appeals from judgment of O. & T. Blair Co., March Sessions 1941, No. 5, in case of Commonwealth v. Russell Lindie et al.

Indictments charging defendants with burglary, larceny and receiving stolen goods. Before Patterson, P. J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdicts of guilty and judgments and sentences thereon. Defendants appealed.

Error assigned, in each appeal, was refusal of new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bernard Jubelirer, of Jubelirer, Jubelirer & Smith, for appellants.

Chester B. Wray, District Attorney, for appellee.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.


Stadtfeld, J.

Mik Blazevich and Russell Lindie were indicted for burglary, larceny and receiving stolen goods.

At the trial the Commonwealth produced testimony that the smokehouse of one Albright, the prosecutor, was broken into, and hams and other foodstuffs in the process of being cured by immersion in salt water in barrels, were stolen. The meat was identified by Albright, and was found in the cellar of the home of Mr. Blazevich, Sr., father of Mik Blazevich, one of the appellants.

On or about January 24, 1941, around eleven o'clock at night, one Ruth Ebersole heard noises which sounded like "tearing boards off". The sound came from the direction of a smokehouse in the back yard, next door to her home. She arose from her bed and looked out of the window toward the direction of the noise and saw two men going down the alley in the direction of Blazevich's home. She then went downstairs and met and talked with Warren Mock and Aaron Albright who were then in Albright's smokehouse. The lock had been broken. They noticed that water or "pickle" was on the floor and meats gone from a barrel in which they were undergoing a pickling process. Albright, the owner of the meat, and Mock and others immediately followed in the direction of the men who were seen by Mrs. Ebersole, and found a piece of "flitch" in the snow about fifty feet from the smokehouse. Albright identified this as part of his meat, which had been in said barrel together with two hams and two shoulders. Albright and his son, Doane, proceeded on to the Blazevich home which was the only house lighted. When near the Blazevich home the porch light came on and the two men whom the witnesses positively identified as the defendants, came out of the house and across the porch carrying what looked like big white bundles. The defendants proceeded around the house and disappeared. The police arrived within a short time and Albright accompanied them to the cellar, the door of which entered on the side of the house in the direction of which the defendants carried the "packages." The stolen meat was found there in the cellar in a position as if hastily thrown there. The pieces were still dripping of brine. Albright identified the four pieces, two hams and two shoulders, as his property. He further explained this identification from their general appearance and from the peculiar manner in which he cured the meats, i. e., by drilling and plugging the drilled holes with salt.

Albright told the police that the one fellow was a stranger and the other fellow was "Mik." Albright and Doane and the police then went upstairs and found the defendants in bed. Albright identified Mik (whom he had known for fifteen years), and "that fellow there" meaning, Lindie, as the men whom he saw carrying the meat around the house toward the cellar.

The meat was later returned to the smokehouse and into the barrel. Mrs. Albright testified that the meat was the same meat stolen from the barrel the day previous. She identified the meat because she had always "helped" with it.

No testimony was offered by the appellants, whose statutory demurrer at the conclusion of the Commonwealth's testimony, was refused. The appellants were found guilty. Motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were filed. Both motions were overruled by Patterson, P. J. and defendants sentenced the same day. These appeals followed.

Appellants contend that the witnesses for the Commonwealth failed to identify the "packages" which the defendants were seen carrying to the cellar, as being the stolen meats; that Blazevich, Sr., father of one of the defendants, was the head of the home in which the stolen meat was found; that the Commonwealth is therefore founding its case by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • DelSignore, In Interest of
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • June 29, 1977 prove that she was exercising control of another person's movable property without his permission. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Lindie, 147 Pa.Super. 335, 24 A.2d 39 (1942). Proof of intent to deprive that person of the property is more difficult. However, like all elements of a crime, in......
  • Commonwealth v. Kaufman
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • August 8, 1955
    ...of not only larceny but of both robbery and burglary as well. Commonwealth v. Lehman, 166 Pa.Super. 181, 185, 70 A.2d 404; Commonwealth v. Lindie, supra. possession of a gun which was taken from the dead man was evidence that the possessor was the murderer. Commonwealth v. Parker, 294 Pa. 1......
  • Com. v. Kaufman
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • August 8, 1955
    ...part of the evidence against the accused.' We, with some variation in language have applied the rule. E. g., in Commonwealth v. Lindie, 147 Pa.Super. 335, 339, 24 A.2d 39, 41, we said: 'It is well settled that where a person is found in possession of recently stolen property, the burden of ......
  • Commonwealth v. Salkey
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • January 21, 1958
    ... ... months after the theft ... --------- ... [1] Possession of recently stolen property has ... been held to be evidence of guilt of murder, Commonwealth ... v. Parker et al., 294 Pa. 144, 150, 143 A. 904; of ... statutory burglary, Commonwealth v. Lindie et al., ... 147 Pa.Super. 335, 24 A.2d 39; Com. v. Wojdakowski, ... 161 Pa.Super. 250, 256, 53 A.2d 851; or robbery and burglary, ... Commonwealth v. Lehman, 166 Pa.Super. 181, 70 A.2d ... ...
  • 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