People v. Stanley

• Decision Date: 16 June 1894
• Citation: 101 Mich. 93,59 N.W. 498
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. STANLEY.

59 N.W. 498

101 Mich. 93

PEOPLE v. STANLEY.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 16, 1894

Exceptions from circuit court, Van Buren county; George M. Buck, Judge.

Frank L. Stanley was convicted of an unlawful sale of liquor, and excepts. Affirmed.

Lincoln H. Titus, Pros. Atty., for the People.

Breck Brothers, for defendant.

MONTGOMERY J.

The respondent was convicted of an unlawful sale of liquor in the township of Paw Paw, Van Buren county, on the highway, in the nighttime. There are numerous assignments of error in the record, but the allegations of error can be easily and readily grouped. The prosecution proved by numerous witnesses the fact that sales of liquor were made on the occasion charged in the information. The question in doubt was the identity of the respondent with the person who made the sales. It appeared by the testimony of the witnesses that the person who made the sales drove to the vicinity of where a dance was being held, and the sales were made from his buggy. The witnesses called by the prosecution were very evidently unwilling witnesses. There was some moon. Those who made the purchases of liquor were within three or four feet of the person in the buggy, and yet were very reluctant to express any opinion as to the identity of the party. The first witness upon this branch of the case was Mr. Stowman, who testified: "I just called for fog, and got beer. That was all there was said. The party in the buggy made no reply that I know of. I paid him twenty-five cents for it,-a twenty-five cent piece. It was the only one I had. I took no notice of the horse. I was within three feet of the man. Q. Mr. Stowman, do you want this court and this jury to understand that you were within three feet of this man on this night, and didn't know who it was? A. Well, I couldn't prove who it was. Q. I am not asking you to prove who it was. A. Then I can't tell you who it was. I couldn't swear who it was, to be positive of it. I couldn't swear, to be positive, who it was. Q. Who did you think it was, that night? A. I thought it was Frank Stanley, for I heard the name spoken. That is all the reason I knew it was him." A motion was made to strike out this answer, but it was denied, and a further question put: "Who did you think it was, when you bought this beer the first time,-at the time you bought it? A. I didn't know who it was. Just in the light, as much as I could see, I thought it was Frank. Q. Frank Stanley? A. Yes sir; that is all I know,-that is, from what I thought. Q. You judged from what you saw of this man in the buggy? A. Yes from what I could see. It was very dark,-quite dark, in the shadows of the trees. There was a little moonlight. It was under the shadow of a tree, and it was quite dark there. Q. And you say at that time you thought it was Frank Stanley? A. I think so." On cross-examination he said, in answer to the question, "If it hadn't been for anything you heard said by other parties there that night, would you have thought it was Frank Stanley?" "I don't know as I would. I might, and might not. Q. You heard parties say it was Frank Stanley, did you? A. Yes, both before and after I got the beer." We think the fair inference is that the testimony as to the occasion when he heard the party in the buggy called "Frank Stanley" was as to the time when the purchase was being made, and a part of the res gestae. Subsequently, when the witness Dolbee was on the stand, his testimony that he heard parties say it was Frank Stanley,-upon its being ascertained that this was before they went out to the buggy,-was stricken out; so that the circuit judge must have understood that the statements of the witness Stowman, as to the time when the party was called "Frank Stanley," related to the precise occasion when the liquor was sold.

Other witnesses were called, and testified that it was...