People v. Dow

• Decision Date: 03 February 1887
• Citation: 31 N.W. 597,64 Mich. 717
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. DOW.

31 N.W. 597

64 Mich. 717

PEOPLE v. DOW.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 3, 1887

Exceptions from recorder's court of Detroit.

Indictment for burglary.

G.X.M Collier, for defendant.

MORSE J.

The respondent was tried and convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Detroit of burglary. On the night of the twenty-sixth of April, 1886, about 3 o'clock in the morning, the house of John B. Moloney, in the city of Detroit, was broken into and entered, and several articles stolen therefrom, among them a gold watch and chain. The evidence against the respondent tended to show him in company with Thomas Powers that evening and early next morning, and with him at one place where Powers attempted to dispose of the watch stolen from Moloney's residence, and also at one Rosenberg's, where Powers sold the watch.

George Marrow testified that he met Powers and Dow on Woodward avenue, and went to a saloon, where Powers asked him to buy a couple of tickets to Rochester, New York, in the presence of Dow, and said that he did not want to go down town because he was afraid he would be arrested; that he had been arrested in Detroit once before, and was afraid he would be arrested again as a suspicious character, but they couldn't do anything with him but hold him a couple of days, and he wanted to buy the tickets for that week. Both the respondents gave him money, $15 in all, and Marrow took it, and went and purchased the tickets. Met Powers and Dow at a saloon afterwards, where arrangement had been made to meet and gave them the tickets. This testimony as to what Powers said was objected to as incompetent as against Dow, who was having a separate trial. The evidence was competent. The occurrence was soon after the burglary, and Dow seems to have been equally interested with Powers in the purchase of these tickets, and the use of them. He was arrested at Rochester. The conversation was in his presence and hearing, and therefore admissible.

The main objection and exception relates to the admission in evidence of the official record of the weather, as kept in the office of N.B. Conger, signal officer in charge of the signal service station at Detroit. Mr. Conger was offered as a witness, and testified that he kept a record of the weather in his office, and had the official record with him. He was then asked to state the condition of the weather on the evening of April 26th, referring to such record. It was objected to as incompetent. Objection overruled. He then testified it was not in his handwriting, but was taken under his supervision. The fact of the record not being in the handwriting of the witness was then made the basis of another objection to its reception in evidence. The court, after some hesitation, allowed the record to be put in evidence. On cross-examination it appeared that the witness left the signal office at 6 o'clock in the evening, and did not return until the next morning. When he went away, he left his assistant, Mr. Baldwin, in charge of the office. Did not know of his own knowledge that Baldwin or the other assistant remained in the office all night, but supposed one of them did. According to this record, the night of the 26th rain commenced by meridian time at 7:10 P.M., and ended at 9:30 P.M., and then commenced again at 9:51 P.M and stopped at 11:45 P.M. On the 27th, beginning...