People v. Henseler
| Decision Date | 05 April 1882 |
| Citation | 11 N.W. 804,48 Mich. 49 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HENSELER. |
The weight of conflicting evidence is for the jury in criminal as well as in civil cases.
If a trial court thinks that a verdict is not in accordance with the evidence, and does injustice, it can correct the jury's error by granting a new trial.
The supreme court cannot review the evidence in a criminal case for the purpose of correcting an error of the jury. It can only interpose when there is a total want of evidence on some essential point, and then only to correct the error of law committed by the trial court in not instructing the jury that the evidence would not warrant a conviction.
Comp.Laws � ____, in punishing the crime of obtaining an indorsement by false pretences, imposes the penalty on public grounds; and the fact that the indorser knew the indorsement was to be dishonestly used cannot release the respondent.
When it becomes necessary in a criminal prosecution to show a particular intent in order to establish the offence charged proof of previous acts of the same kind is admissible for that purpose.
In a prosecution for obtaining an indorsement on the false pretence that the proceeds of the paper were to be paid to a specified person it was held allowable to show that respondent had previously obtained from the indorser sums which he claimed were to be paid and afterwards said had been paid to the same person, when in fact they had not been. Such evidence tends to show a systematic scheme for obtaining money on false pretences.
Where an indorsement was obtained by false pretences resting on positive statements to which surrounding facts gave color, it could not be charged, as matter of law, that no offence had been committed in obtaining it on the ground either that the pretences were such as would not impose on persons of ordinary prudence or that other considerations, known to the respondent, aided them.
An assistant prosecuting attorney has power in the necessary absence of his superior and with permission of the court to make good amendments to an information as are authorized by statute.
Exceptions from recorder's court of Detroit.
Edward S. Grece, C.H. Freeman, and Wm. B. Jackson for respondent.
J.J Van Riper, for the people.
The respondent was charged with obtaining the indorsement of Martin Kline to a promissory note by false pretences, and upon trial had was convicted. The case comes here upon exceptions before judgment. Quite a number of errors are alleged:
First. The court refused to instruct the jury, that the proof offered by the people did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The weight to be given the testimony, where conflicting, should be left to the jury. If at a subsequent time the trial court is of opinion that the verdict was not in accordance with the evidence introduced and that injustice has been done thereby, full power is possessed by the court to correct the error or mistake of the jury by granting a new trial. This court cannot however review the evidence for a like purpose. It is only where there is a total want of evidence upon some essential point that this court can interpose, and then it is not to correct the mistaken judgment of a jury upon a question of fact, but the error of law in the courts not instructing the jury that the evidence would not authorize a conviction.
Second. That if Kline indorsed the note for an unlawful and immoral purpose, he was not within the protection of the statute, and the respondent should be acquitted. This objection as we understand it, under the facts in this case, means that if the money to be obtained from a negotiation of the note after its indorsement, was to be used by the respondent for an unlawful or immoral purpose, and such fact was known to the person before indorsing, there could be no conviction. This position is based upon the theory that the statute upon which this prosecution was founded, was in some way intended to protect the party deceived and defrauded but not to punish the party guilty thereof. When a crime has been committed the law seeks to punish the party guilty thereof. The injured individual has been wronged, and his object, motive or complicity therein may affect any remedy...
To continue reading
Request your trial