State v. Adler
| Decision Date | 02 June 1914 |
| Citation | 142 P. 344,71 Or. 70 |
| Parties | STATE v. ADLER. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; John P. Kavanaugh Judge.
Joe Adler was convicted of receiving stolen property, and appeals. Affirmed.
Robert E. Hitch, of Portland (Manning, White & Hitch, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant. John A. Collier and C. W. Robinson, both of Portland (Walter H. Evans, Dist Atty., of Portland, on the brief), for the State.
Defendant was indicted for receiving and buying certain stolen property of the value of $166.91, being tin foil, and the property of a corporation called the American Chicle Company, gum manufacturers. He purchased from the company 12,000 pounds for the sum of $770, and Joe Bloch, the shipping clerk for the company, by agreement and in collusion with said Adler, delivered to him a large quantity of tin foil owned by said company and not included in said sale, for which Adler paid him $50. There are no assignments of error and but one principal error is relied on, that there was no proof offered by the state that the American Chicle Company was a corporation, and therefore that there was no proof of ownership of the property alleged to have been received by the defendant. This was suggested for the first time by motion for a directed verdict.
The state on April 22, 1914, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because appellant has not filed a proper bill of exceptions, and because the brief contains no assignment of error. The transcript was filed December 16, 1913. Rule 23 of this court (56 Or. 623, 117 P. xii) provides:
"All motions must be filed within ten days after a party or his counsel obtain knowledge of an alleged failure of the adverse party or his counsel to comply with the requirements of the statute or with the rules of this court."
This motion is too late to raise any question, unless the omission be such as to leave the court without jurisdiction, which might be the case if there were no bill of exceptions; but there is a record here entitled "bill of exceptions," containing the transcript of all the evidence in the case, which is proper and necessary in a bill of exceptions to present the motion for a directed verdict. Therefore the motion must be denied.
Upon such bill of exceptions no other questions can be considered. Many attorneys seem to think a copy of the evidence will answer every purpose of a bill of exceptions, but it will not. See West v. McDonald, 136 P. 650, and cases cited.
The defendant first urges as ground for appeal the refusal of the court to direct a verdict of acquittal at the close of plaintiff's testimony because Joe Bloch, the main witness as to the delivery to Adler, was a thief, and that defendant received the stolen goods from him; and, being an accomplice, there was no evidence corroborating him which would tend to connect defendant with the commission of the crime. In a criminal trial a proceeding in the nature of a motion for nonsuit is not recognized under our Code, unless the defendant had rested his case.
Defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the evidence, on the ground that the property is charged to belong to the corporation called the American Chicle Company that there was no evidence that the American Chicle Company was incorporated; and therefore that there was a failure of proof. The evidence of the state upon that point was given by the witness Britton, who testified that he was and, for 16 years had been manager of the American Chicle Company, which was doing business at Fourteenth and Johnson streets, in Portland, Or., manufacturing chewing gum. Defendant, as a witness for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern P. Ry. Co. v. John Day Irr. Dist.
...of Tillamook, 62 Or. 332, 336, 124 P. 637, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 483; Tyree v. Crystal Dist. Imp. Co., 64 Or. 251, 126 P. 605; State v. Adler, 71 Or. 70, 142 P. 344. In case of Splonskofsky v. Minto, Sheriff, 62 Or. 560, 126 P. 15, this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Burnett, cited with app......
-
State v. Cahill
...has been cited with approval in State v. Lee Wye, 123 Or. 595, 263 P. 60, and State v. Folkes, 174 Or. 568, 150 P.2d 17. In State v. Adler, 71 Or. 70, 142 P. 344, 346, defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property which was alleged to belong to a corporation, but there was no evidenc......
-
State v. Savan
...was the same, the very one charged and established by the evidence." See, also, State v. Chapin, 74 Or. 346, 144 P. 1187, and State v. Adler, 71 Or. 70, 142 P. 344. In case of State v. Lewark, 106 Kan. 184, 186 P. 1002, the defendant was charged with receiving stolen property belonging to t......
-
State v. Hansen
...question on appeal. State v. Jeannet, 183, Or. 354, 360, 190 P.2d 983; State v. Reynolds, 164 Or. 446, 480, 100 P.2d 593; State v. Adler, 71 Or. 70, 73, 142 P. 344. She did, however, with her requested instructions submit a request which would have told the jury that there was no evidence t......