Commonwealth v. Titus

• Decision Date: 06 October 1874
• Citation: 116 Mass. 42
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Lucian M. Titus & another

116 Mass. 42

Commonwealth v. Lucian M. Titus & another

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

October 6, 1874

Worcester. Indictment against Lucian M. Titus and Elbridge F Horr, charging them jointly with the larceny of certain articles of personal property alleged to be the property of Nancy Meacham.

Trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., who allowed the following bill of exceptions: "The defendant Horr pleaded guilty. Titus pleaded not guilty. Upon his trial the government introduced evidence tending to prove the ownership of the property as alleged in the indictment; and that the owner, while riding on one of the public highways in Athol lost the wallet or travelling bag containing the articles mentioned in the indictment; that the defendants, passing along the same highway not long after the loss of the bag discovered it, picked it up, and afterwards appropriated the contents of the bag to their own use, and destroyed the bag by cutting it in pieces and concealing the same in a wood lot remote from the place of finding.

"As bearing upon the question of the intent with which the defendant Titus originally took the bag and its contents, the government, against his objection, was permitted to introduce evidence to show what Titus said and did about the property and his possession of it, subsequently to the original finding and taking. This evidence was offered by the government and admitted by the court for the single purpose of proving, so far as it tended to do that, the intent with which Titus originally took the property into his possession at the time of finding it. And the jury were instructed that they could properly make no other use of this evidence, as against the defendant.

"The defendant's counsel asked the court to rule that lost property cannot be the subject of larceny. This ruling the court declined to give; but did instruct the jury that to authorize a conviction of the defendant Titus, they must be convinced by the evidence in the case beyond all reasonable doubt: First, that at the time of the finding of the property by the defendant and the taking of it into his possession, he had a felonious intent of appropriating the property to his own use and depriving the owner of it Secondly, that he then knew who the owner was, or then had reasonable means of knowing or ascertaining who the owner was.

"The court further instructed the jury that if the evidence failed to satisfy them beyond every reasonable doubt that, at the time of finding the property, Titus knew or had reasonable means of knowing who the owner was; or if they should find that he did not originally take the property with the felonious intent of converting it to his own use, but formed such purpose afterwards, it would be their duty to acquit him.

"To the admission of the evidence objected to, the refusal to rule as requested, and the foregoing instructions, the defendant objected. Other and appropriate instructions, not objected to, in relation to the nature of the offence charged, and in relation to the evidence, the burden of proof, &c., were given.

"The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant alleged exceptions."

Exceptions overruled.

F. T Blackmer, for the defendant, cited 2 East P. C. 663, Regina v. Wood, 3 Cox C. C. 453; Regina v. Preston, 2 Den. C. C. 353; S. C. 5 Cox C. C. 390; Regina v. Dixon, 7 Ib. 35, Regina v. Christopher, 8 Ib. 91; Regina v. Moore, Ib. 416; Regina v. Glyde, 11 Ib. 103; People v. Anderson, 14 Johns. 294; ...