Nelson v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1881 |
| Citation | 52 Wis. 534,9 N.W. 388 |
| Parties | NELSON v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to municipal court, Milwaukee county.
James Hickox, for plaintiff.
H. W. Chynoweth, Asst. Att'y Gen., for defendant.
The only question we have to consider in this case is, was there sufficient evidence to warrant the finding of the jury? The plaintiff in error, with one Monroe, was charged in one count with stealing $95 from the person of Semra B. Powers, in Milwaukee, on the fifteenth of June, 1880. In another count he, with Monroe, was charged with the crime of receiving and concealing and in aiding in concealing $95, the money of Powers, knowing the same to have been stolen. The jury found him guilty as charged in the information. The evidence is entirely conclusive as to the fact that Powers had his pocket picked by Monroe while he was upon the street near the Spring street bridge in the forenoon of the tenth of June. Powers testified that it was while the procession at the soldier's reunion was passing along the street that his pocket-book was stolen. He says he was in a great crowd and that he felt some one taking his pocket-book from his pocket; that he reached back and seized the man, Monroe, who was the thief. Monroe struggled to get away in the crowd, but he held on to him until an officer came and took him in charge. However, before the officer came up, Powers demanded of Monroe his pocket-book, when the latter dropped it on the ground, saying, “There is your pocket-book.” Powers picked it up and found that money had been abstracted from it while out of his possession. Powers said there was a great crowd about him and much excitement; that persons tried to get between him and Monroe, and tried to break his hold on Monroe, some crying out, “Let the man alone;” “Break his head open;” and other like expressions. Powers testified that he thought the plaintiff in error was one of those who were trying to aid Monroe in getting away from him. It appears that in the struggle Monroe lost his hat, which, it is admitted, was found on the plaintiff in error, concealed under his coat, when he was arrested by the officer (just after the larceny was committed) on the east side of Spring street bridge and taken to the station. The police officers also testified that they had seen the plaintiff in error and the man Monroe on the streets together at different times for two or three days; that there was something about their conduct or looks which aroused their suspicion. It seems the plaintiff in error had been taken to the police station and examined by the chief of police on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Noland
... ... v. Cain, 102 Mass. 487; ... Josslyn v. Com., 6 Metc. 236; Booth v ... Com., 5 Metc. 535; Com. v. Butterick, 100 Mass ... 1; Com. v. Holmes, 137 Mass. 248; State v ... Smith, 18 S.C. 149; Dohme v. State, 68 Ga. 339; ... Hawker v. People, 75 N.Y. 487; Nelson" v ... State, 52 Wis. 534; State v. Williams, 9 Ired ... 140; Ex parte Hibbs, 26 F. 421; State v. Tuller, 34 ... Conn. 298; Wilson v. State, 20 Ohio 26; Guthrie ... v. People, 24 N.E. 100; State v. Billingshood, 51 Me ... ... OPINION ... [19 S.W. 716] ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Wetherington v. NC Dep't of Pub. Safety
...; Thomas v. State , 171 Tex. Crim. 54, 344 S.W.2d 453 (1961) ;Wilson v. State , 63 Tex. Crim. 81, 138 S.W. 409 (1911) ; Nelson v. State , 52 Wis. 534, 9 N.W. 388 (1881).3 Rosenberg v. Durfree , 87 Cal. 545, 26 P. 793 (1891) ; Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Newson , 45 Tex. Civ. App. 562, 102 S.......
-
Matter of Cardiel-Guerrero
...constituting larceny, brings property into the State, or buys, sells, receives, or aids in concealing or withholding it); Nelson v. State, 9 N.W. 388 (Wis. 1881) ("Our statute provides that a person who receives, conceals, or aids in concealing, stolen property, knowing the same to have bee......
-
Long v. State
...we think the judgment of the municipal court must be affirmed." And in Grottkau v. State, 70 Wis. 462, 36 N.W. 31, in referring to the Nelson case, the court said: "It was effect held that where one is charged in separate counts with different crimes, each of which was subject to the same p......