People v. Cronin

• Decision Date: 09 May 1890
• Citation: 80 Mich. 646,45 N.W. 479
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CRONIN.

45 N.W. 479

80 Mich. 646

PEOPLE v. CRONIN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 9, 1890

Error to recorder's court of Detroit.

Charles W. Casgrain and Edwin Henderson for appellant.

James V. D. Willcox, Pros. Atty., for the People.

CHAMPLIN C.J.

The information charged that John Cronin, on the 10th day of December, A. D. 1889, at the said city of Detroit, in the county aforesaid, not being a member of the metropolitan police force of the city of Detroit, with fraudulent purpose and intent falsely did personate, represent, and pretend to Aggie Gregg, and to divers and sundry other persons, that he was then and there a member of the metropolitan police force of the city of Detroit, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of Michigan. The testimony introduced to support this charge consisted of that given by Aggie Gregg, the complainant, and Joseph Manning, a detective employed in the metropolitan police force of the city of Detroit. Respondent was a young man 19 years of age, and, having seen an advertisement in a Detroit paper of detectives wanted in Kansas City, entered into a correspondence with the association, applied for membership and received a certificate of membership, purporting to be issued by the United States Detective Bureau of Kansas City, as a corporation under the laws of Kansas, dated September 27, 1889, entitling him to the privileges of membership for one year. He also received a badge, in the form of a cross. It was small, long, and narrow, and had the words "Private Detective" upon it, but it was not like the badges worn by the officers of the metropolitan police. He did not represent and pretend in so many words to Aggie Gregg to be a member of the metropolitan police force, but told her that he was a detective, and his partner was Joe Manning, and showed her his hand-cuffs and two keys, which he claimed were keys to patrol boxes, and explained to her their use, and what a detective did when he arrested a person; how he took them to the patrol box, and turned them over to the patrolman. At the close of the people's case the counsel for respondent requested the prosecuting attorney to state whether the information was based upon section 9252 of Howell's Statute, and he replied that it was. This section reads as follows: "If any person shall falsely assume or pretend to be a justice of the...