People v. Wood

• Decision Date: 10 April 1894
• Citation: 58 N.W. 638,99 Mich. 620
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WOOD.

58 N.W. 638

99 Mich. 620

PEOPLE v. WOOD.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 10, 1894

Error to circuit court, Kalamazoo county; George M. Buck, Judge.

Stub Wood was convicted of breaking and entering a mill, and brings error. Affirmed.

Oscar T. Tuthill, for appellant.

A. A Ellis, Atty. Gen., and L. N. Burke, Pros. Atty., for the People.

MONTGOMERY J.

The respondent was convicted of breaking and entering the flouring mill of the Merrill Milling Company, about 1 1/2 miles south of the city of Kalamazoo. The theory of the prosecution was that the offense was committed by the respondent, one Edward Coleman, and one Betts. The evidence was circumstantial, and tended to snow that there were tracks of two or three men leading from the window of the mill to the road, where there were tracks made by a vehicle which apparently had one wheel which did not track with the others; that the imprint of the foot of the horse was rather small; that one foot made an impress indicating that it had a broken portion of a shoe on, and that the other feet of the horse were unshod; that, shortly after the burglary, flour of the same grade as that stolen, and in sacks of the Merrill Milling Company, was found in possession of respondent; that it was a grade of flour not sold to local dealers; that the co-respondent Coleman had a horse and light wagon; that the horse was unshod, except a portion, only, of a shoe on one foot; that one wheel of the wagon did not track with the others; and that, between 6 and 7 o'clock of the evening of the night on which the burglary was committed, the three respondents were seen driving south, towards the place of the burglary, with a one-horse wagon. It is insisted that there was no sufficient evidence to warrant the conviction of the respondent. But we think otherwise. There was ample testimony from which the jury might have found that the burglary was committed by Coleman and his associates, and there was also evidence to go to the jury upon the question of whether the respondent Wood was associated with him in the burglary. The record contains a large number of assignments of error, many of which it would be without profit, either to the respondent or the profession, to review.

Error is assigned on the admission of the testimony of the miller that the sample of flour found in the possession of one of the respondents was the same as that manufactured at the mill; but we think it was competent to show that the flour corresponded in quality, and we are not prepared to say that a practical miller could not determine the quality on examination. The fact that the flour was found in sacks labeled with the name of the manufacturer, and also labeled with the name of the grade, was some evidence tending to show that it was of this quality. We think, also, that defendant's requests...