People v. Martin

• Citation: 74 N.W. 653,116 Mich. 446
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 29 March 1898
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MARTIN.

74 N.W. 653

116 Mich. 446

PEOPLE v. MARTIN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 29, 1898

Exceptions from superior court of Grand Rapids; Edwin A. Burlingame Judge.

Isma Martin was convicted of larceny, and she brings exceptions. Affirmed.

Fred A Maynard, Atty. Gen., and Frank A. Rodgers, Pros. Atty., for the People.

McKnight & McAllister, for defendant.

MOORE J.

The respondent was convicted in the superior court of Grand Rapids of the offense of larceny of property belonging to Gertrude Anderson. There are many assignments of error, but the important question in the case is whether the facts shown by the testimony constitute the offense of larceny. The respondent offered no testimony. The jury, in order to convict, must have believed the testimony offered by the people, which was to the following effect: In the early part of 1897 the respondent came to Grand Rapids as a solicitor for a life insurance company of which S. F. Angus was the Detroit manager. She made the acquaintance of Miss Earle, one of the examining physicians of the life insurance company, and through her made the acquaintance of Miss Anderson, who was keeping house, with one servant, in Grand Rapids. She solicited Miss Anderson to become insured, but Miss Anderson did not consent. About the middle of February an arrangement was made that Miss Martin was to board with Miss Anderson, and she did so from then until the 15th of April, when Miss Martin left Grand Rapids. Miss Anderson had a bicycle. About the 1st of March there was talk between them about purchasing a bicycle, and Miss Martin said she was going to have a new wheel, and should buy it very cheap, through a friend of hers, and if Miss Anderson wanted one she could get one for her, and she thought she could sell the old wheel to a lady she knew in Detroit. Miss Anderson at this time was employed in the office of the United States engineer where there were a number of persons employed. A little later Miss Martin suggested to Miss Anderson she thought she could get wheels for her associates in the office, considering them also as friends, at the same price. Miss Anderson decided to take a wheel, and then told her associates what Miss Martin proposed. Miss Martin came to the office March 13th, and arranged to take the orders for a wheel for Miss Anderson and several of her associates. Miss Martin sat down at Miss Anderson's desk, and wrote what she said was a letter to the friend through whom she was to get the wheels, E. J Moran. Miss Anderson was to have a high grade Cleveland wheel at a cost of $38. Mr. Scharoth gave her an indorsed government check for $100 and $13 in money. Capt. Townsend gave her a check for $38. Mr. Wallace gave her $18, and Miss Martin offered to loan him $20 to make up his $38. Miss Martin folded up what had been delivered to her, and folded up the letter, and put them all in an envelope, and asked Miss Anderson to go with her to the express office to buy the money order, which Miss Martin said she wanted to get off that night. This was between half past 4 or 5 o'clock. On the way to the express office Miss Martin said she must first go to the office of Dr. King to get the $20 she was to let Mr. Wallace have. The two went to the office, and Miss Martin went in, and, after being gone for awhile, returned, and reported that Dr. King was not in, and she would have to see him later. She then said she must go to the U. B. A. Home on business, and Miss Anderson walked up there with her. They then came down town. It was nearly 6 o'clock, and, fearing the money-order department of the express office would be closed later, they went to the express office, and arranged that the checks which had been given Miss Martin should be received and cashed by the express company, and a money order be issued to Miss Martin later, when she had collected the $20 of Dr. King. It was then so late Miss Anderson went home, and left Miss Martin to finish the business. Miss Martin returned to the express office, and bought an order for $50, and one for $43, in favor of S. F. Angus, Detroit, and one for $28 in favor of Mrs. F. B. Martin, Detroit, and no other orders on that day or on the 14th, 15th, or 16th of March were issued to Isma Martin, and none were issued in favor of E. J. Moran. About 7 o'clock or after Miss Martin returned to the residence of Miss Anderson, and held up a piece of paper some distance from her, and said, "Here is the receipt for that money." After this the women talked about the wheels, which did not come. About a week before Easter, Miss Martin showed Miss Anderson a letter, which she said was from her friend through whom she was getting the wheels, saying if they would wait until Easter Monday the wheels would have the late improvements. The next Thursday after Miss Martin showed this letter she left the house saying she was going to Detroit and would return the following Monday. She did not return, and Miss Anderson did not see her again until she saw her in court after her arrest. Miss Anderson never received any wheel. She testified that she never consented that Miss Martin should use the money she gave her for any other purpose than to purchase for her a bicycle.

It is the position of the people that from the foregoing facts, and the necessary and reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, the jury were warranted in finding the respondent guilty of larceny. The position of respondent is stated in a request to charge reading as follows: "If you find from the evidence in the case that the money was delivered by Gertrude Anderson to respondent, intending at the time of the delivery to pass the title to the same, no matter how fraudulent the transaction on the part of the respondent turned out to be, you must acquit the respondent of the offense charged." In support of this proposition counsel cite 2 Archib. Cr. Pl. 371; 1 Whart. Cr. Law, � 88; 2 East, P. C. 668; Ross v. People, 5 Hill, 294; Bish. Cr. Law, � 808; Hildebrand v. People, 56 N.Y. 396; People v. McDonald, 43 N.Y. 61; Zink v. People, 77 N.Y. 126. While it is conceded by the people that Miss Anderson consented to part with the possession of her money, they contend her consent was fraudulently obtained, and that she did not intend to part with the title of her property to Miss Martin, but that it was delivered to her for a special purpose, and for that reason the offense is larceny; citing People v. Shaw, 57 Mich. 403, 24 N.W. 121; Stinson v. People, 43 Ill. 397; Welsh v. People, 17 Ill. 339; Murphy v. People, 104 Ill. 533; Com. v. Barry, 124 Mass. 325; People v. Abbott, 53 Cal. 284.

...