People v. McGrath
| Decision Date | 01 March 1888 |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, RESPONDENT, v. MAURICE McGRATH, APPELLANT |
APPEAL from a judgment of the district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial. The opinion states the facts.
Affirmed.
Mr George Sutherland, (Messrs. Hoge & Burmester with him on the brief) for appellant.
Mr Ogden Hiles and Mr. James N. Kimball, for respondent.
The defendant was accused by indictment in the first district court of the crime of grand larceny, and convicted. The indictment charged that the crime was committed by taking from Alma H. Winn, during the trial of the case of Bullion, Beck and Champion Mining Company v. Eureka Hill Mining Company, 11 of his books, containing a phonographic report of the testimony of witnesses examined on the trial. It appears from the evidence in the record that the loss of the notes necessitated the retaking of the testimony, there being no duplicate report. The evidence showed that Winn was the official reporter of the court, and that the books were taken from his possession without his knowledge or consent. They were alleged in the indictment to be worth $ 500. The evidence showed that the reporter received $ 10 per day for reporting, and that he was engaged 11 days in making the report. Winn testified that in view of the cost of making the report, and of the value thereof for transcription, and of the importance of the case, the books taken were of the value of $ 1,000. The appellant insists that the phonographic report of the testimony was not the subject of larceny, and we are referred to 2 Russ. Crimes, 262. Having stated that written instruments relating to real estate, and choses in action, were not the subject of larceny at common law, the author gives the reason for the rule: "And the reason why title deeds and choses in action are not the subject of larceny is because the parchment is evidence of the title to land, and the written paper is the evidence of the right, and, though the evidence is stolen, the right remains the same; and a right cannot be subject to larceny; neither can the paper which is evidence of it." This reasoning is quite refined, if not subtle. We do not concede that choses in action and title deeds are not the subject of larceny at the common law as it is now understood and applied in this country. But if we were to concede that they were not, the books in question are neither title deeds nor choses in action. They are not within the letter or the reason of the rule. Those books contained the expression in phonographic characters of the knowledge of the witnesses with respect to the subject of the action in which the notes were taken for use therein. Larceny is described in the Criminal Code of this territory as follows: "Larceny is the felonious stealing, taking, carrying, leading, or driving away the personal property of another." Personal property may be said generally to include everything that is the subject of ownership, not being land, or an interest in land. We are of opinion that the books in question are personal property.
It is urged that the court erred in adopting a wrong standard of value on the trial, and that the true standard was the market...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cutler v. State
...In the absence of explanation, reasonable statements of un-impeached witnesses are presumed to be true when uncontradicted. People v. McGrath, 5 Utah 525, 17 P. 116. bare allusion to the failure of defendant to testify has been held by the Texas court of criminal appeals as not sufficient e......