March v. The State
| Decision Date | 07 March 1889 |
| Docket Number | 14,786 |
| Parties | March v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Marion Criminal Court.
Judgment affirmed.
J. D Hamrick and R. S. Turrell, for appellant.
J. L Mitchell, J. W. Holtzman, H. T. Tincher and J. A. Pritchard for the State.
The appellant prosecutes this appeal from a judgment declaring her guilty of larceny.
She was tried and convicted under the name assigned her in the record, which is the name she assumed while in the city of Indianapolis, but it is not her true name. She is a resident of a town in a distant State. She first visited the store of Born & Co., in Indianapolis, on the 7th or 8th day of March, 1888, and looked at some carpets and curtains, but did not then bargain for them. Either at that time or at another visit on the 15th, she told one of the salesmen that her name was Mrs. D. F. Kennedy; that she was from Noblesville, and had an income of $ 150 per month; that her husband was a stonemason and had leased house number 184 North Tennessee street, in Indianapolis. After looking at the carpets and curtains on the 7th or 8th of March, she went to Mrs. Hubbard, who lived at number 184 North Tennessee street, and asked her if she would allow Mrs. Kennedy to come there and help make the carpets, and stated that Mrs. Kennedy owned the carpets. When she bargained for the goods she directed that the bill should be made out in the name of Mrs. Kennedy, and executed the contract under that name. The contract provides that the title to the goods shall remain in the sellers until the goods are paid for; it shows that only part of the price was paid, and that they were to remain at number 184 North Tennessee street until full payment. The goods were delivered at that place on the 15th day of March. About an hour after they were delivered, the accused told Mrs. Hubbard that Mrs. Kennedy wanted them shipped to her house. The goods were put in a box and were placed in the hands of an express company on the afternoon of the 15th day of March. The box was directed to Carrie Dickson, Newton, Iowa. It was delivered at the house of the accused at that place, and she and her daughter, Carrie Dickson, were present when it was delivered. False statements were made by the accused to various persons regarding the manner in which she obtained the goods, and other matters connected with the transaction.
The facts support the inference that the accused formed a fraudulent scheme to steal the goods before she secured possession of them. It is, indeed, impossible to infer any other conclusion. Not only do the facts require this conclusion but they warrant the further inference that the appellant had formed a felonious intent to deprive the owners of their goods and appropriate them to her own use before she began the negotiations which enabled her to obtain possession of them. The false statements made by her, the devices resorted to by her to deceive the owners of the goods, and the shipment of them to Iowa, so soon after she obtained possession of them, leave no room to doubt that she had preconceived a scheme to obtain possession of the goods and feloniously appropriate them. The case against her is clear. The felonious intent existed at the beginning. She meant from the first to feloniously...
To continue reading
Request your trial