State v. Adams
| Decision Date | 05 June 1897 |
| Docket Number | 10809 |
| Citation | 58 Kan. 365,49 P. 81 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. FRANK L. ADAMS |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1897.
Appeal from Hamilton District Court. Hon. W. E. Hutchinson, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
L. C Boyle, Attorney General, and C. T. Reid, County Attorney, for the State; M. W. Sutton and George Getty, of counsel.
A. J Hoskinson, for appellant.
The defendant was convicted, in the District Court of Hamilton County, of robbery in the first degree, and sentenced to fifteen years confinement in the penitentiary. From this conviction he appeals. The amended information charges that the defendant made an assault on Jim Akin, and did then and there, in the presence and against the will of said Akin, by violence to his person and by putting him in fear of immediate injury, rob, steal, take, and carry away certain personal property therein described, belonging to one Fred Harvey. Numerous errors are assigned, only one of which requires especial consideration. We find no error in the rulings of the court on preliminary motions. One substantial question, however, is presented.
The conviction was had under section 73 of the Act Regulating Crimes and Punishments, which reads as follows:
"Every person who shall be convicted of feloniously taking the property of another from his person or in his presence, and against his will, by violence to his person or by putting him in fear of some immediate injury to his person, shall be adjudged guilty of robbery in the first degree."
It is contended that under this section of the statute the property taken must be the property of the person robbed; that if it be the property of another, it is larceny, but no robbery. It must be conceded that the language of the section is susceptible of the construction urged by counsel for appellant, and the Supreme Court of Missouri, in State v. Lawler (130 Mo. 366, 32 S.W. 979), has held that an indictment in substance like the one under consideration fails to charge an offense under a similar statute of Missouri. The argument of the case is, that the person robbed must either own the property taken, or have such title to it as would have enabled him to maintain an action to recover possession of it if wrongfully taken from him. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals of New York, in Brooks v. The People (49 N.Y. 436, s. c., 10 Am. Rep. 398), held, under a section of the statute of that State identical with the one above quoted, that, in an indictment for robbery, the property may be laid as belonging to either the actual owner or the person robbed; and it was said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Scott
...telegraph operator at a railway station, even though they did not have access to the safe from which money was taken], and State v. Adams (1897) 58 Kan. 365, 49 P. 81 ["As against the robber, a servant has the same rights, and rests under the same duty, to preserve and defend his possession......
-
State v. Butler
... ... 173, 187, 93 A.2d 328 (1952); State v. Lyons, 70 N.J.L. 635, 645, 58 A. 398 (E. & A.1904); People v. Kubish, 357 Ill. 531, 192 N.E. 543, 545 (Sup.Ct.1934); People v. O'Hara, 332 Ill. 436, 163 N.E. 804 (Sup.Ct.1928); O'Donnell v. People, 224 Ill. 218, 79 N.E. 639 (Sup.Ct.1906); State v. Adams, 58 Kan. 365, 49 P. 81 ... Page 590 ... (Sup.Ct.1897); State v. Craft, 299 Mo. 332, 253 S.W. 224, 227 (Sup.Ct.1923); State v. Lamb, 242 Mo. 398, 146 S.W. 1169 (Sup.Ct.1912); 77 C.J.S. Robbery, § 9. The robbery referred to in the statute, N.J.S. 2A:113--2, N.J.S.A., making a killing committed ... ...
-
State v. Carcerano
...v. O'Hara, 332 Ill. 436, 163 N.E. 804 (Sup.Ct.1928); O'Donnell v. People, 224 Ill. 218, 79 N.E. 639 (Sup.Ct.1906); State v. Adams, 58 Kan. 365, 49 P. 81 (Sup.Ct.1897); State v. Craft, 299 Mo. 332, 253 S.W. 224, 227 (Sup.Ct.1923); State v. Lamb, 242 Mo. 398, 146 S.W. 1169 (Sup.Ct.1912); 77 C......
-
Pippin v. State
... ... gratuitous. Wimbish v. State, 89 Ga. 294, 15 S.E. 325 ... In ... People v. Davis, 97 Cal. 194, 31 P. 1109, which was a ... case of pocket picking, it was held that mere possession was ... sufficient ownership to sustain the indictment. In State ... v. Adams, 58 Kan. 365, 49 P. 81, it was held that, in an ... indictment for robbery, the ownership may be laid either in ... the true owner or in the person robbed. In State v ... Patton, 1 Marv. (Del.) 552, 41 A. 193, it was held, that ... prima facie, property in possession of a person is presumed ... ...