State v. Bednarski
| Decision Date | 08 October 1957 |
| Citation | 85 N.W.2d 396,1 Wis.2d 639 |
| Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Respondent, v. Leo BEDNARSKI, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Gauer, Buer & Murray, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Stewart G. Honeck, Atty. Gen., William A. Platz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We find no merit in the various specifications of error, and hence the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.
1. To establish that the fence was 'the property of another, to-wit: John Schaefer' the state offered, and the court received over objection, a certified copy of a judgment rendered in 1954 by the county court of Waukesha County in an action to quiet title brought by John Schaefer and wife against appellant's parents, in which it was adjudged that the Schaefers were the owners in fee simple of certain land including that on which the fence stood. Appellant contends that the receipt of this evidence was error, because he was not a party to the action in which the judgment was rendered, and therefore was not bound by the judgment. We think however that the judgment was properly admitted as prima facie evidence of the fact adjudicated by it, that Mr. and Mrs. Schaefer were the owners of the land where the fence stood. That the judgment was not conclusive does not mean that it was inadmissible. Thus deeds are commonly admitted to make a prima facie case of title, although they may be rebutted by showing them to be forgeries. So here the judgment was admissible even though not conclusive upon the defendant. While the authorities are in conflict, the view we take finds support in 4 Wigmore, Evidence, 3 ed., sec. 1346a and 5 id. sec. 1671a; State v. O'Leary, 207 Wis. 297, 300-302, 241 N.W. 621, 81 A.L.R. 1193; Schaefer v. Bednarski, 271 Wis. 574, 576, 74 N.W.2d 191; ALI Model Code of Evidence, secs. 515, 521, 523.
2. Appellant sought to rebut the case thus made against him on the ownership question by showing that the land on which the fence stood was lake bottom prior to its drainage in the 1890's in the operations which were held illegal in Priewe v. Wisconsin State Land & Imp. Co., 103 Wis. 537, 79 N.W. 780, and that since the drainage was illegal, the state retained title to the former lake bed and hence it was not the land of Schaefer as charged. Against this contention the state suggests that illegally uncovered lake bottom may become private property--here the property of the Schaefers--by adverse possession and use, citing sec. 330.10, Stats.1953 and State v. Adelmeyer, 221 Wis. 246, 260, 265 N.W. 838.
We find it unnecessary to determine whether the land was owned by the Schaefers or by the state. Admittedly appellant did not own it. The statute which he was accused of violating, sec. 343.44, provided:
'Any person who shall wilfully, maliciously or wantonly destroy, remove, throw down or injure any fence * * * on land belonging to or lawfully occupied by another * * * or tear down * * * any * * * fence * * * standing or being upon the land of another or held in trust * * * shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six months or by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars.'
Whether the land belonged to Schaefer or to the state, it belonged to 'another' than appellant, and hence he violated the statute in tearing down the fence upon it. Appellant argues that the statute does not apply to property of the state, and points to the fact that a separate section of the statutes, 343.45, provides criminal penalties for injuring or destroying structures belonging to the state or any municipality. The two sections are not necessarily mutually exclusive, however; and we think sec. 343.44, Stats.1953 is unambiguous in its references to 'land belonging to * * * another' and 'land of another' and includes land owned by the state.
3. There was no fatal variance between accusation and proof even if we accept the view that the land belonged to the state instead of to the Schaefers. The precise ownership of the land was not material to the merits of the case, it not being contended that defendant was the owner or had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ecker
...that Ecker was misled to her prejudice, the information is deemed amended in conformance with the proof. See State v. Bednarski, 1 Wis.2d 639, 642, 85 N.W.2d 396 (1957). Judgment and orders affirmed.This opinion will not be published. See Wis. Stat. Rule E 809.23(1)(b)5.1 All references to ......
-
Byrd v. Israel
...transferring the money to the robber, and both had a right to the property, as store employees, superior to Byrd. In State v. Bednarski, 1 Wis.2d 639, 85 N.W.2d 396 (1957), the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered the defendant's contention that his conviction, under a statute prohibiting the......
-
State v. J.A.V.
...the titleholder of the property. Commonwealth v. Smith , 17 Mass. App. Ct. 918, 456 N.E.2d 760, 761 (1983) ; State v. Bednarski , 1 Wis. 2d 639, 85 N.W.2d 396, 398 (1957). ¶27 Even if this court might not convict on the evidence submitted by the State, we must affirm if a rational trier of ......
-
State v. Laabs
...to what the charges were, nor was there any element of surprise to the defendant in the preparation of his defense. State v. Bednarski (1957), 1 Wis.2d 639, 85 N.W.2d 396. Sec. 957.16(1), Stats., 'The trial court may allow amendments in case of variance between the complaint or indictment o......