Donnelly v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 24271.,24271. |
| Citation | 142 N.E. 219,194 Ind. 136 |
| Parties | DONNELLY v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Marion Criminal Court, Marion County; Frank Coby (Sp.), Judge.
Patrick Leroy Donnelly was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Wm. N. Harding and Joseph T. Markey, both of Indianapolis, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Atty. Gen., and Mrs. Edward F. White, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
[1] Appellant was convicted of grand larceny. The indictment charged that he stole fourteen automobile tires of the value of $560, the property of Nordyke & Marmon Company, a corporation. A motion for a new trial for the alleged reason that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence was overruled, and that ruling is assigned as error, the particular point urged by counsel being that the alleged ownership was part of the description of the property alleged to have been stolen, and that there was no evidence that Nordyke & Marmon Company owned the property proved to have been stolen. There was evidence that a witness had a conversation with appellant “relative to some tires that belonged to Nordyke & Marmon Company, a corporation,” in which a statement made by another party was read to the effect that he and appellant went to the Waverly plant on South East street, at night, that appellant had a key with which they entered and took five tires, and took them away, that they afterward went there twice more in ten days, each time at night, and took nine more tires, and that they sold eight of the tires and appellant received part of the money, and that appellant said that the said statement made by the other man was true; that appellant signed a statement in writing of substantially the same facts; that one of the tires was recovered from appellant's house and others from different places named; that the assistant treasurer of Nordyke & Marmon Company was called over to police headquarters and talked with appellant; that the watchman at the Waverly plant was brought to police headquarters and questioned, and a few days after appellant's arrest he was “let out of the employ of Nordyke & Marmon”; that appellant had been employed by Nordyke & Marmon Company for nearly two years, as a member of their special police force, assigned to the main office, but had left the employ of said company about three months before his arrest; that he said he had a gate key which was turned in by some watchman, and that he kept it when he “left the plant,” and it was used to get into the Waverly plant; that as an employé he never had any right to a master key; that the Waverly plant was in the possession of the Nordyke & Marmon Company, and they stored their property there; that its gates were fastened with padlocks, and the key appellant had was a key to the gate system that would open any of their gate padlocks; and that a representative of the Nordyke & Marmon Company receipted for the tires at police headquarters, and took them away with him. It is not claimed that this evidence falls...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bass
... ... without leaving it to his discretion. Definite reference to a ... street number in a given city and state meets the requirement ... of this rule. Steele v. U. S., 45 S.Ct. 414, 267 ... U.S. 498, 69 L.Ed. 757; U.S. v. Friedman (D. C.) 267 ... F. 856; Donnelly v. State, 142 N.E. 219, 194 Ind ... As a ... matter of course where there are two streets in the same city ... bearing identical names and numbers, or if there be more than ... one building located at the designated street number, or a ... number of occupants in possession ... ...
-
Utley v. State
...such evidence, it must be assigned as a cause for a new trial. Gillespie v. State, 1924, 194 Ind. 154, 142 N.E. 220; Donnelly v. State, 1924, 194 Ind. 136, 142 N.E. 219; See also: Bradley v. State, 1905, 165 Ind. 397, 75 N.E. 873; Miller v. State, 1905, 165 Ind. 566, 76 N.E. 245; Kruger v. ......