Mead v. State
| Decision Date | 04 January 1889 |
| Citation | 41 N.W. 277,25 Neb. 444 |
| Parties | ALONZO MEAD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Adams county. Tried below before GASLIN, J.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
A. H Bowen, for plaintiff in error, cited: Thompson v. The People, 4 Neb. 528.
Wm Leese, Attorney General, for defendant in error, cited Rex v. Gilbert, 1 Moody Crown Cases, 185. Com. v. Wilde, 5 Gray (Mass.), 83. Ainsworth v. State, 11 Tex. Ct. of App., 339. Reg. v. Slowly & Humphrey, 12 Cox C. C., 269. Wharton Crim. Law, Sec. 947 (9th Ed.)
At the June term, 1887, of the district court of Adams county, the county attorney of said county filed an information, charging plaintiff in error with stealing a mule, on the 18th day of the same month, from A. C. Lindquist.
Upon arraignment, plaintiff in error pleaded not guilty, and on the 24th day of June a trial was had, which resulted in a verdict of guilty, and on the same day he was sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the term of four years. He brings the cause to this court by proceedings in error, alleging that the verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient evidence; that it was contrary to law; and that the court erred in overruling a motion for a new trial.
The principal contention of plaintiff in error is, that the verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient evidence.
The testimony introduced on the part of the state shows that Lindquist was the owner of the mule in question, on the day of the alleged larceny, when he was approached by plaintiff in error, suggesting a trade. He declined to trade the mule for other property, saying that there was a chattel mortgage on it, and he wanted to sell it. Plaintiff in error then proposed buying it, if Lindquist would wait a short time, saying that one Lee had a mate for a horse which he had and would buy him, but that he and Lee were not friendly, and Lee would not buy directly from him. Soon after that, Lee came to the barn and offered plaintiff in error $ 90 for the horse, but no sale was made, and Lee went away. Plaintiff in error then asked Lindquist to take the horse and go to where Lee was and get the $ 90, which Lindquist refused to do, saying that he was a stranger. He finally went and saw Lee, when Lee told him to return to the stable and he would be there in a few minutes and pay the price demanded. Lindquist then returned to the stable and informed plaintiff in error what had transpired. Plaintiff in error began to remove the saddle from the mule, when Lindquist informed him that the saddle must not be removed until he got his money. Plaintiff in error then left the barn, when Lee soon after came in, saying he would have the money in a few minutes, and for Lindquist to take the horse out of the barn and hitch him to a post by the bank, which Lindquist did. It is shown that the mule was soon afterwards removed from its place in the barn and tied beside plaintiff's remaining horse. The buggy or carriage in which plaintiff had driven to Juniata that morning had been removed to the rear of the barn, by the owner of the barn. Plaintiff in error soon afterward returned, hitched his horse and the mule to his buggy, and departed. He was soon afterward followed and arrested for the larceny.
Upon the trial he testified, in his own behalf, that he did not know of the removal of the horse, nor of the substitution of the mule in its place in the barn, until he returned, and finding them so situated he supposed the exchange had been made by Lindquist, and without stop ping to inquire further he hitched up and left.
There is considerable in the evidence which savors very strongly of...
To continue reading
Request your trial