People v. Cruger
| Decision Date | 01 June 1886 |
| Citation | 7 N.E. 555,102 N.Y. 510 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CRUGER. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from judgment general term supreme court, First department, affirming judgment and order denying motion for new trial on conviction of the defendant of grand larceny in the second degree at the New York oyer and terminer.
Morris A. Tyng, for appellant, Kortright Cruger.
Randolph B. Martine, for the People.
The conviction is for stealing, on the tenth of March, 1885, a diamond pin, the property of one Porteous. It appeared in evidence that the defendant was engaged in the business of buying and selling jewelry, and of effecting loans upon personal property; that before the time in question there had been dealings between the parties in relation to the pin, but on that day it was in the possession and under the sole control of Porteous, who, as he testified, left it with the defendant to be sold; but, according to the testimony of the defendant, Porteous wanted him to procure a loan upon it, and did not direct a sale. It also appeared that at the police court, on the twenty-sixth of April, 1885, at an examination concerning the same transaction, Porteous was asked this question, ‘You authorized a loan?’ and answered, ‘Yes sir; when he [the defendant] suggested either a loan or a sale.’ Other circumstances in evidence sustain the defendant's version, and there are some which might impair the credit of the complainant as a witness. There was sufficient evidence that the defendant did procure the loan from one Hawkins. At the close of the testimony the defendant moved for a direction of a verdict of acquittal, on the ground that ‘the indictment charges distinctly a larceny of a certain particular pin; and, the evidence being perfectly clear that the pin was left with the defendant for the purpose of procuring a loan on it, that he did procure a loan on it, acting exactly within the scope of his authority, and doing precisely what it was left with him for, he cannot be convicted under this indictment of the larceny of this pin.’ The court denied the motion, saying: ‘The complainant claims that there was no such authority conferred upon him; that it was left with him for the purpose of sale, and not for the purpose of pledging.’
The defendant then asked the court to charge the jury as follows:
‘The indictment being for the larceny of a certain pin, if the jury believe that the complainant, being the owner of the pin, authorized the defendant to obtain a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great Nat. Lloyds v. Hall, 15484
...Mercantil Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 49 Mont. 430, 143 P. 559, L.R.A.1915B, 327, Ann.Cas.1916A, 1126; People v. Cruger, 102 N.Y. 510, 7 N.E. 555, 55 Am.Rep. 830; Stuht v. Maryland Motor Car Ins. Co., 90 Wash. 576, 156 P. Appellee argues that the evidence shows that Flowers had ......
-
Gunn v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co
...Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 49 Mont. 430, 143 Pac. 559, L. R. A. 1915B, 327, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 1126; People v. Cruger, 102 N. Y. 510, 7 N. E. 555, 55 Am. Rep. 830; Stuht v. Maryland Motor Car Ins. Co., 90 Wash. 576, 156 Pac. 557. Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Geo. L. ......
-
Gunn v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co.
... ... Mercantile Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 49 ... Mont. 430, 143 P. 559, L.R.A. 1915B, 327, Ann.Cas. 1916A, ... 1126; People v. Cruger, 102 N.Y. 510, 7 N.E. 555, 55 ... Am.Rep. 830; Stuht v. Maryland Motor Car Ins. Co., ... 90 Wash. 576, 156 P. 557 ... ...
-
Giannetto v. General Exchange Ins. Corp.
...than the automobile itself, and that the larceny was therefore not within the coverage of the insurance policy, citing People v. Cruger, 102 N.Y. 510, 7 N.E. 555. This contention might have had merit if it had been proved that Alfieri had received possession of the automobile lawfully and h......