People v. Grossman

Citation60 N.E. 1050,168 N.Y. 47
PartiesPEOPLE v. GROSSMAN.
Decision Date10 July 1901
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Fourth department.

Samuel Grossman was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and from a judgment of the appellate division (69 N. Y. Supp. 1141) affirming such conviction he appeals. Affirmed.

Vernon Cole, for appellant.

Frederick Haller and Thomas Penney, for the People.

BARTLETT, J.

The defendant was convicted on the 8th day of February, 1895, of criminally receiving stolen property, in violation of the statute, by the verdict of a jury at a trial term of the superior court of Buffalo. The judgment entered upon this verdict was unanimously affirmed by the appellate division on the 20th day of March, 1901. The record discloses no reason for this long delay. The unanimous decision of affirmance precludes this court from any examination of the facts. As there are no exceptions to the charge of the learned trial judge, and no requests to charge were submitted, the defendant is codnfined to rulings against him, to which exception was duly taken, as to the admission or rejection of evidence. The case was submitted to the jury practically on the people's evidence, as the defendant rested after proving that railroad brasses—the kind of property involved in this indictment—were bought and sold under certain conditions in the city of Buffalo by junk dealers, and swearing a number of witnesses as to his good character. The counsel for the defendant insists that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, over objection and exception, of thefts of other brasses than the ones involved herein, and the conviction of other persons who had stolen other brasses; also in refusing to strike out this evidence on motion duly made at the close of the case, to which rulings exception was duly taken. A brief reference to the facts is necessary in order to pass upon the exceptions thus presented. The defendant is charged in the indictment with feloniously buying and receiving 147 pounds of brass, of the value of 10 cents per pound, the property of the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, well knowing that it had been stolen from said corporation. The people swore the master car builder of the railroad company, who had been 35 years in its employ, and who was in charge of the rolling stock from Niagara Falls to Rochester. This witness explained that the brasses in question weighed each from 9 to 13 pounds, and each constitutes the top of the box where the journal revolves, and protects it from friction and cutting; that, if removed, and not speedily discovered, the journal would be cut off, and the train wrecked. It further appeared that these brasses were manufactured by the railroad company, stamped with its name and a star, and were never sold for old metal until worn out and useless. The testimony of this witness and certain car inspectors disclosed that, while the cars of the railroad company were standing on the tracks in the East Buffalo yards in May and June, 1894, and at other times, these brasses were detached from the cars, and stolen by parties unknown; that in the spring of 1894 the loss and inconvenience to the company had assumed such proportions that the latter placed the matter in the hands of detectives. Two of these detectives were allowed to swear that before the arrest of the defendant they discovered, while watching the cars in the yard, a number of brasses on the ground that had been removed from a car, and nine in a bag at another place; that they pursued four Polish boys, who had brasses in their possession, arrested one of them, and the others escaped. The people further proved that the railroad company, in order to ascertain who were the receivers of their stolen property, established a forge for the smelting of brass at Cheektowaga, near East Buffalo. The details need not be stated, as it suffices to say that the defendant, who was under suspicion, became advised of the existence of the smelting forge, and on the late afternoon of June 27, 1894, drove to the premises with a companion, and under an arrangement previously made with one Peter Grant Brown, the supposed proprietor of the forge, to smelt brasses, produced a number of them, bearing the stamp of the railroad company, from a bag in their possession. Brown testified that at this previous interview the defendant, when asked by him how he wished the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Richardson
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 11, 1917
    ...made to the court, and, if refused, excepted to, if it is now to be claimed that such a charge should have been made. People v. Grossman, 168 N. Y. 47, 60 N. E. 1050;People v. Pindar, 210 N. Y. 191, 104 N. E. 133. The question presented to the court by the request to charge and the statemen......
  • People v. De Simone
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1919
    ...N. E. 1001. We must, additionally, ascertain whether any alleged error raised by an exception at the trial has validity. People v. Grossman, 168 N. Y. 47, 60 N. E. 1050;People v. Sherlock, 166 N. Y. 180, 59 N. E. 830. It is manifest in an examination of the record that there was evidence fr......
  • People v. Bresler
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 11, 1916
    ...of legal errors appearing in the record or raised by exception on the trial.’ A similar ruling was made in this court in People v. Grossman, 168 N. Y. 47, 60 N. E. 1050, the trial having been had in the Superior Court of Buffalo. An indictment cannot be attacked in this court unless its suf......
  • People v. Drayton
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 10, 1901
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT