Hahn v. State
| Decision Date | 19 September 1900 |
| Citation | 83 N.W. 674,60 Neb. 487 |
| Parties | HAHN v. STATE. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. In an information for burglary, it is proper to allege ownership in the person having the visible occupancy and control of the premises burglarized.
2. Where a building in possession of, and occupied by, a person having the general charge and control thereof, has some of the rooms therein let to lodgers and for other purposes, the whole of the building is considered in law as the dwelling house of such person, in whom ownership should be alleged in an information for burglary.
3. Where a building thus occupied has a basement, some of the rooms of which are let to lodgers and for other purposes, and a hallway leading to the different rooms is in possession of, and used by, the person in charge of the building, in common with those occupying the rented rooms in such basement, and a burglary is committed by breaking in at the door of such hallway, held, that ownership was properly charged as being in the person in possession and having charge and control of the premises.
4. Breaking into the basement hallway held to be a burglary of the dwelling house of the person residing in the building, and having the general charge and control thereof, although such basement is not connected internally with other portions of the building.
5. Evidence examined, and found to support the verdict and judgment.
Error to district court, Lancaster county; Holmes, Judge.
Rudy Hahn was convicted of burglary, and brings error. Affirmed.
James E. Philpott, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, 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 nonresident 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 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 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 of the person having 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial