People v. Hawksley

• Decision Date: 02 July 1890
• Citation: 82 Mich. 71,45 N.W. 1123
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HAWKSLEY.

45 N.W. 1123

82 Mich. 71

PEOPLE v. HAWKSLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 2, 1890

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; HENRY N. BREVOORT, Judge.

Accused was bar-keeper in the house where the theft occurred.

James V. D. Wilcox, Pros. Atty., for the People. Geo. X. M. Collier and F. M McMath, for respondent.

GRANT J.

The respondent was convicted of the larceny of a watch on November 27, 1888. The principal question raised upon the record is that the court erred in permitting evidence to be given of defendant's possession of the watch until facts and circumstances had been shown from which the jury might find the possession to be a guilty possession, and that the watch in question had actually been stolen. It is contended on behalf of respondent that there is no evidence in the record from which the jury could find that the watch was stolen, or that the defendant was guilty of the crime. The watch was alleged to be the property of one Soule.

Soule had been in the habit of visiting the house where it is claimed the crime was committed, and for some days previous had spent the most of his time there. This was a notorious house of prostitution, kept by one Mrs. McCarty, just outside the limits of the city of Detroit. On the morning of November 28th, Soule was found dead in the dance-room of the house having been killed by stabs with a knife. Whether it was murder or suicide does not appear. Soule had owned the watch in question for several years. He was known to have had it shortly before his death. The fact that it was not upon his body when found aroused suspicion. The inmates of the house were questioned by the officers, and denied any knowledge of the watch. The respondent was questioned, and said that he never saw a watch on Soule, and never knew that he had one, but that he saw that Soule wore a chain, and supposed he had a watch. A warrant was obtained for respondent's arrest, and the watch which had formerly belonged to Soule was found upon his person, in an inside vest pocket. When the officer felt the watch in his pocket respondent said: "I suppose that is what you want." Afterwards, respondent said that he had loaned Soule some money on the watch and taken that as security. Several of the inmates of this house were witnesses for the respondent, and gave evidence tending to sustain this claim of the respondent. Among these was one William Moran, an employe at the McCarty house, who had been convicted of several crimes and had served a term in the state's prison. He was one of the jury summoned by the coroner to investigate the circumstances surrounding Soule's death. The prosecution gave evidence that this Moran was under arrest, and confined in the county jail, at the same time with respondent; that a conversation took place between them through the waste-pipe; that respondent said to Moran: "I want you to swear that you saw me give...