Koster v. People

Decision Date09 July 1860
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesHenry J. Koster v. The People

Submitted on Brief July 5, 1860

Error to Ionia circuit.

Plaintiff in error was convicted on an information which charged that he, "on the 13th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, about the hour of 10 o'clock in the night time of the same day, with force and arms, at the township aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, the store-house of one John Vaughn, there situate, feloniously and burglariously did break and enter, with intent the goods and chattels of the said John Vaughn, in the said store-house then and there being found, then and there feloniously and burglariously to steal, take, and carry away; and a large quantity of pork, of the value of six dollars, of the goods and chattels of the said John Vaughn, in the said store-house then and there feloniously and burglariously did steal, take, and carry away, against the form of the statute," etc.

Judgment reversed.

Bell & Soule, for plaintiff in error.

There was no appearance for the people.

Campbell, J. Manning and Christiancy, JJ. concurred. Martin, Ch. J. was absent.

OPINION

Campbell J.:

The statute under which this prosecution is had punishes "every person who shall break and enter, in the night time, any office, shop, railroad depot or warehouse, not adjoining to or occupied with a dwelling-house," with intent to commit felony.

It is a plain principle of law, that where the statutes enumerate several elements as combining to create a crime, the crime can not properly be described without including all these elements. An entry into a shop or warehouse in the night, with intent to commit a felony, is not a crime under this statute, unless it also appears that the shop or warehouse is neither adjoining to nor occupied with a dwelling. Burglary, at common law, must be committed in such a place as is within the definition of a dwelling, which term has received an enlarged signification. Entering other buildings was not regarded in the same light. In making a new crime, the legislature have seen fit to select a peculiar class of buildings, and it can not be enlarged or varied.

The information is defective in not setting forth any offense known to our laws; and the judgment was therefore erroneous, and must be reversed.

Manning and Christiancy JJ. concurred.

Martin Ch. J. was absent.

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • State v. Farnam
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 12, 1916
    ......215]. contention of defendant's counsel here so far as this. branch of the case is concerned, and the case of People. v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431, which suggests a contrary. view, we believe to be based upon an erroneous distinction. between that ... offenses. Statutory offenses were always required to be set. out with all the statutory elements. Koster v. People, 8 Mich. 431. The statute designed to simplify. indictments for statutory crimes, which is in force in this. state, and ......
  • People v. Young
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 22, 1983
    ...charged they must be set forth in substance, as in the statute, with all descriptive incidents, whether negative or otherwise. Koster v. People, 8 Mich. 431 (1860); Byrnes v. People, 37 Mich. 515 (1877)." 44 Mich. 307, 6 N.W. See also Hall v. People, 43 Mich. 417, 5 N.W. 449 (1880); People ......
  • Sneed v. People
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • January 29, 1878
    ...... 286-9; Merwin v. People, 26 Mich. 298; State v. Eno, 8 Minn. 220; State v. Gary, 36 N. H., 359;. State v. Parker, 43 N. H., 83), and everything. essential to the description of the offense must appear,. Comp. L., § 7928; Enders v. People, 20 Mich. 233; Napman v. People, 19 Mich. 352; Koster v. People, 8 Mich. 431; Rice v. People, 15 Mich. 9; People v. Olmstead, 30 Mich. 431; Dillingham. v. State, 5 Ohio St., 280; State v. Henderson,. 1 Richardson 179; Tennessee v. Fields, Mart. & Yerg.,. 137; Fink v. Milwaukee, 17 Wis. 26; Com. v. Ramsey,. 1 Brews. (Pa.), 422. If the punishment ......
  • State v. Hecox
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 31, 1884
    ...(1) the building alleged to have been burglarized was within the curtilage of a dwelling house and no such crime is charged. Koster v. People, 8 Mich. 431; Byrnes v. People, 37 Mich. 515; Beckford v. People, 39 Mich. 209; Gibson v. State, 54 Md. 447; Thralls v. State, 21 Ohio St. 233; Conne......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT