People v. Jagt

• Decision Date: 22 July 1926
• Docket Number: No. 119.,119.
• Citation: 209 N.W. 915,235 Mich. 620
• Parties: PEOPLE v. VANDERJAGT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

235 Mich. 620

209 N.W. 915

PEOPLE

v.VANDERJAGT.

No. 119.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 22, 1926.

Error to Circuit Court, Wexford County; Fred S. Lamb, Judge.

Cornelius Vandrejagt was convicted of unlawfully transporting and selling alcohol, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench. E. J. Millington, and A. W. Penny, both of Cadillac, for appellant.

Fred C. Wetmore, Pros. Atty., of Cadillac, for the People.

FELLOWS, J.

Defendant was convicted of transporting and selling to one Marshall 10 gallons of alcohol. In the complaint and warrant, the date (November 23, 1925) was laid with a videlicet; in the information it was not. Both Mr. and Mrs. Marshall were called as witnesses. Mrs. Marshall was quite positive the alcohol was delivered on the 23d, which was on Monday before Thanksgiving, and Mr. Marshall testified that ‘those packages were left at my house some time in the first part of the week before Thanksgiving Day.’ The trial judge charged that defendant could be convicted if the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the liquor was actually transported and delivered to Marshall, and that it was unimportant whether it occurred on the 23d or the 24th; and it is here insisted that the failure to allege in the information the date under a videlicet prevented a conviction for an offense committed on any date other than the specific one alleged.

This court has frequently held that it was competent to amend the date in an information where, as in this case, time was not of the essence of the offense. Keator v. People, 32 Mich. 484;People v. Hamilton, 76 Mich. 212, 42 N. W. 1131;People v. Hoffman, 142 Mich. 531, 105 N. W. 838;People v. Nichols, 159 Mich. 355, 124 N. W. 25;People v. Sharac, 209 Mich. 249, 176 N. W. 431;People v. Clum, 213 Mich. 651, 182 N. W. 136, 15 A. L. R. 253. In the Keator Case the charge was perjury; there was a variance of a day in the date alleged and the one proven; it was held not to be fatal. In the Hoffman Case the charge was obtaining money by means of false pretenses; the date was alleged without a videlicet; the proof showed the money was obtained a day later; the information was amended; and this court held the amendment, was properly allowed. In the Clum Case the charge was violating the Blue Sky Law (Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 11945–11969); the date was laid without a videlicet; it was held that an amendment adding, ‘and divers other days and dates,’ was properly allowed. Where it was...