Furnace v. State

• Citation: 153 Ind. 93,54 N.E. 441
• Parties: FURNACE v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1899
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

153 Ind. 93
54 N.E. 441

FURNACE
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 30, 1899.

Appeal from circuit court, Sullivan county; W. R. Nesbit, Special Judge.

William Furnace was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

Will H. Pigg and W. T. Douthitt, for appellant. Wm. L. Taylor, Atty. Gen., Rowland Evans, and Merrill Moores, for the State.

JORDAN, C. J.

Appellant was convicted of having committed the crime of petit larceny, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the state's prison. The only alleged error urged by his counsel in their brief relates to the court's overruling a motion to quash the information and affidavit. It is insisted that the information upon which he was convicted is bad for duplicity, and that the motion to quash for this reason ought to have been sustained. The information charges “that William Furnace * * * on the 29th day of March, 1898, at the county of Sullivan and state of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully and feloniously steal, take, and carry away, of the personal goods and chattels of said Jane Engle, $5 in money, and the personal goods and chattels of Samuel Engle, $4.50 in money, contrary,” etc. It is urged by appellant's counsel that the pleading embraces two distinct and separate larcenies in the same count, and is thereby rendered bad for duplicity. The question in respect to the duplicity of the information depends upon whether it, prima facie, can be said to disclose that two distinct, separate offenses were committed by the defendant, in stealing the property as charged. The amount of money stolen, in the aggregate, was $9.50, $5 of which, it appears from the averments of the pleading, belonged to Jane Engle, and the remainder to Samuel Engle. The information, with a slight or immaterial change, may be read as follows: That William Furnace, at the time and place stated, “did then and there unlawfully and feloniously steal, take, and carry away” $5 in money, of the personal goods of Jane Engle, and $4.50 in money, of the personal goods of Samuel Engle. “Then,” as an adverb of time, means “at that time,” referring to the time stated; and the necessary import of the words “then and there,” as employed in the information, is that the larceny of the $9.50 in money as a whole, a part of which is charged as belonging to Jane Engle and a part to Samuel Engle, occurred at the same time and place, and constituted but a single transaction. The complainant below in this case was the state of Indiana, and the stealing of several...