People v. McCarty

• Decision Date: 23 December 1942
• Docket Number: No. 97.,97.
• Citation: 303 Mich. 629,6 N.W.2d 919
• Parties: PEOPLE v. McCARTY.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

303 Mich. 629

6 N.W.2d 919

PEOPLE

v.McCARTY.

No. 97.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 23, 1942.

James McCarty was convicted of burning his personal property wilfully with intent to defraud insurers thereof, and he appeals.

Verdict set aside and new trial granted.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ingham County; Leland W. Carr, Judge.

Before the Entire Bench.

Pierce, Planck & Ramsey, of Lansing, for appellant.

Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Victor C. Anderson, Pros. Atty., and Paul C. Younger, and Marvin J. Salmon, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Lansing, for appellee.

WIEST, Justice.

Defendant was charged with and, upon trial by jury, found guilty of wilfully, with intent to injury and defraud insurers threof, burning his personal property. His motions for directed verdict and for a new trial were denied and he was sentenced to prison for a term of two and one-half to ten years. Defendant reviews by appeal and, among other errors, claims the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.

Defendant rented two rooms on the ground floor and the basement of a two-story brick building at the southwest corner of Washtenaw street and Grand avenue in the city of Lansing where, for several years, he carried on the business of selling and servicing electric refrigerators. He carried insurance on his merchandise and servicing equipment. The upper story of the building was a rooming house. About four o'clock, the morning of December 7, 1938, fire was discovered in the rear room rented by defendant and his merchandise and equipment were damaged. The building was not burned. Defendant continued his business in the building and about two years after the fire he was charged with the mentioned crime and put to trial.

Defendant had two workmen in his employ. There had been a fire, damaging refrigerating equipment in a building at Grand Ledge, and defendant was employed to repair it. George Van Beek, one of the workmen, was a witness for the prosecution and testified that about four and a half hours before the fire in defendant's place of business, while he and defendant with David Quirk, the other employee, were driving to Grand Ledge, the following conversation occurred:

‘We talked about this particular beer box we were putting in, talked about profits from fires; talked about things in general, mostly about fire and about fire replacement jobs. We generally called James McCarty Mack of Jack. Quirk asked Mac, ‘If a fire would do him any good.’ Mac said, ‘Yes, I believe it would.’ That was just about eleven o'clock or slightly after that, in the evening.'

That conversation appears to have been the basis for claiming that defendant in tended to set fire to his place of business. The talk was casual and the remark, if made, was not evidence of an intended criminal purpose, but rather a jocose reply to the jocular inquiry. It was just loose talk, inextensible and not infamizing.

The witness also testified that, when they reached Grand Ledge, Quirk and defendant returned to Lansing, came back to Grand Ledge about midnight and picked him up. On their return to Lansing they had lunch at a restaurant and then went to defendant's place of business where the witness claims he noticed merchandise had been moved about and goods stored in the back room; that when he inquired about the change and about the cause he was told defendant and Quirk had been looking for rats. Defendant and Quirk testified to legitimate reasons for moving the...