Frank v. State

• Decision Date: 18 November 1889
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: REUBEN H. FRANK v. THE STATE

6 So. 842

67 Miss. 125

REUBEN H. FRANK v. THE STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 18, 1889

FROM the circuit court of Warren county, HON. RALPH NORTH, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for receiving stolen goods, a lot of car brasses, knowing them to be stolen. The property was proved to have been stolen from the receiver of the Vicksburg and Meridian Railroad Co. The appellant kept a junk shop in the city of Vicksburg, and after the larceny an agent of the railroad company called with the chief of police on Frank to learn if he had purchased or seen the brasses. He denied having bought them, and disclaimed all knowledge of them. The articles bore certain stamps showing the names of the companies for which they were manufactured, and shortly after they were missed they were found in Cincinnati, Ohio, where they were received in a shipment from appellant at Vicksburg. They were identified, and by direction of the officials of the said railroad company were returned to Vicksburg consigned to the chief of police. Upon their arrival they were by him unpacked from the barrel in which they were shipped, and appellant, who by request was present when the barrel was opened, admitted that he had shipped them, and claimed them as his own, and such articles as were not claimed by the railroad company were returned to him. It was shown that the brasses, with many other articles of a like kind, were shipped by Frank from Vicksburg to Cincinnati by boat a few days after the larceny.

Upon the trial the following instructions were given in behalf of the state:--

"1. The court instructs the jury that it is not incumbent on the state to show by the evidence in order to convict the defendant, that the defendant acknowledged he bought or received the goods, knowing they were stolen, or to prove that the parties from whom he bought or received the same told him that they had previously stolen the goods charged it is sufficient if all the facts and circumstances testified to in the case satisfy the minds of the jury, to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, that the defendant knew or had good reason to believe the goods were stolen property and if the jury believe this to a moral certainty arising out of the evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt, they should convict the defendant.

"2. The court instructs the jury that in considering the guilty knowledge of the defendant they should consider the facts of their being stolen property, and the character of the goods received by him, whether they bore marks or brands indicating their ownership, and, if the property is shown to have been recently stolen, that they were of a nature which would indicate, or from which to a reasonable man would indicate their being stolen, or if they bore marks and brands sufficient to bring to the defendant's mind the knowledge of their ownership, when received by him, then it is a presumption that the defendant had knowledge of their being stolen property.

"3. The jury are instructed that guilty knowledge is not often capable of direct proof, that it is a conclusion to be drawn from all the facts and circumstances in the case, and if the jury are satisfied from the facts and circumstances that the defendant received or bought the goods and converted them to his own use when he had a knowledge, or had good reason to believe they were stolen property, then they will find him guilty as charged."

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. A motion for a new trial was overruled and defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

L. W. Magruder, for appellant.

Under an indictment for receiving stolen goods, the defendant cannot be convicted of larceny unless by statute different counts charging larceny and receiving stolen goods can be joined. 2 Russell on Crimes, 544. They are separate and distinct crimes, both at common law [see Bishop, 2d vol.] and under our statute. Code 1880, §§ 2901, 2...