People v. Town

• Citation: 53 Mich. 488,19 N.W. 158
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 23 April 1884
• Parties: PEOPLE v. TOWN.

19 N.W. 158

53 Mich. 488

PEOPLE v. TOWN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 23, 1884

A plea of guilty to the accusation of the larceny of several articles as one act, and for a use to which all were to be and were put, may be taken as an admission of the larceny of all.

Where an information makes no reference to section 9180, How.St under which horse-stealing is punished as distinctive larceny, the case should be disposed of as simple larceny and the punishment fixed by section 9140, How.St. A punishment greater than that fixed by the latter statue is excessive.

A judgment reversed in part, and affirmed in part, under section 9614, How.St.

Error to Lenawee.

J.J Van Riper, for the People.

J.W Helme, Jr., and Watts & Smith, for defendant and appellant.

COOLEY C.J.

The respondent was charged before a magistrate with the larceny of a horse, harness, cattle, buffalo robe, two blankets, and a whip. Witnesses were examined in support of the charge, whose evidence showed that he had obtained the horse and other articles of a livery dealer, all at one time, and for the purposes of a trip to Palmyra; but, as the other facts tended to show, with a purpose at the time of obtaining them feloniously to appropriate them to his own use, and that he went off with them into the state of Ohio. A warrant was issued, upon which he was arrested, and on being brought before the magistrate, he waived examination, and was held for trial. An information was filed against him, which, in setting out the offense, followed the complaint before the magistrate. The respondent pleaded guilty to the information, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment in the state prison for eight years. The respondent brings error.

It is claimed that the sentence is illegal, because the court has undertaken to sentence for horse-stealing under the statute which imposes a heavier punishment for that species of larceny, while the charge was of the stealing of several different things, and a general conviction is not a finding that all of them were stolen. Boody v. People, 43 Mich. 34; S.C. 4 N.W. 549. We think, however, that when the accusation is of the larceny of several articles, as one act and for a use to which all were to be and were put, a plea of guilty may be taken as an admission of the larceny of all, and the judgment be supported. The sentence, however, though not wholly illegal, was excessive. The information made no...