Hahn v. State
| Decision Date | 19 September 1900 |
| Docket Number | 11,195 |
| Citation | 83 N.W. 674,60 Neb. 487 |
| Parties | RUDA HAHN v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before HOLMES, J. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
James E. Philpott, for plaintiff in error.
T. C Munger, Constantine J. Smyth, Attorney General, Willis D Oldham, Deputy, and Paul Pizey, for the state.
The defendant, plaintiff in error, was informed against for burglary of a dwelling-house, the ownership of which was alleged to be in one Melvern Richardson. A trial resulted in a verdict of guilty and sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary. It is claimed by his counsel that the evidence fails to support the verdict and judgment, in that the ownership of the property was not proven as alleged. this contention arises from, and is based upon, the character of the possession and occupancy, by the said Richardson, of the building alleged to have been broken into.
Briefly speaking, the evidence discloses that the building was a three-story brick with stone basement, occupied by, and in possession of, said Richardson, who had charge of it on behalf of non-resident owners. Parts of the building were let to others for different uses. The party in possession for the owners had living apartments in the first story. There was an internal communication by means of a stairway between the first story and basement, which, at the time of the offense, was closed by locking the door of the room in the first story into which the stairway led, and which was used as a teaching room. The entrance into the basement being used at the time was from the exterior of the building by means of a door and hallway directly under the steps which led into the first story. There were several rooms in the basement on both sides of the hallway. Three of the rooms on one side were occupied by a family as living rooms. On the other side of the hall were two rooms used as a kitchen and dining room, where a number boarded, and which were rented and managed by a person living in another building across the street. Some two or more rooms in the basement were unoccupied, except as to the possession and occupancy thereof by the person having general charge and control of the entire building. The hallway was used in common by the said Richardson and those having rented the rooms as before mentioned. The burglary was committed by breaking into this hallway.
The vital question is, therefore, whether, under the facts thus proven, the ownership of the property was properly laid in the said Richardson. It is insisted by counsel for defendant that, because the basement rooms were not connected internally with the rooms on the first floor, and that a part of them were let to others for the purposes mentioned, the ownership of the building burglarized should be alleged to be in one or the other of the two parties occupying the basement rooms as herein mentioned.
Without determining the legal effect of closing and keeping locked the door which connected, by an inside stairway, the rooms in the basement with those on the first floor, we think it appears from the evidence that the person living in, and having general charge and control of, the building was the owner thereof in contemplation of law, when applied to the crime of burglary, as in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sedlacek v. State
...So the question here presented, while stated in the Winslow case, was not actually in controversy there. See, also, Hahn v. State, 60 Neb. 487, 83 N.W. 674, where rule as to alleging ownership was accepted as a premise for the opinion. The rule stated in the Winslow case is in accord with t......
- Hahn v. State