State v. Boggs

Decision Date20 October 1917
Docket NumberNo. 31721.,31721.
Citation181 Iowa 358,164 N.W. 759
PartiesSTATE v. BOGGS.
CourtIowa Supreme Court


Appeal from District Court, Wapello County; D. M. Anderson, Judge.

Defendant, who was indicted under the provisions of section 4823 of the 1913 Supplement to the Code, was tried and acquitted by the jury. An instruction requested by the state was refused and exception taken. The state appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion. Affirmed.H. M. Havner, Atty. Gen., F. C. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer K. Daugherty, of Ottumwa, for the State.

A. W. Enoch and W. S. Asbury, both of Ottumwa, for appellee.


The indictment in this case is based upon section 4823 of the 1913 Supplement to the Code, the material part of which is as follows:

“* * * Or if any chauffeur or other persons shall without the consent of the owner take, or cause to be taken, any automobile or motor vehicle, and operate or drive or cause the same to be operated or driven, he shall be imprisoned. * * *”

At the close of the testimony counsel for the state requested the court to give the following instruction:

“* * * That consent given by the owner of the car, given for specific purpose or for a stated time, would not be consent to use the car for a different purpose, nor generally, nor for an unlimited time; and consent to use the car for a period of 15 or 20 minutes would not be consent to drive the car to Muscatine.”

The court refused to give the above instruction, but in lieu thereof gave the following:

(5) The gist of the offense charged is taking and driving of the motor car in question without the consent of the owner. The defendant is not on trial in this case for any other offense than that charged in the indictment. If the owner consents to the person charged taking and driving the car, then the person charged cannot be convicted of taking and driving the car, even though he may drive it for a long distance, or may damage the car, or even convert it to his own use. If the owner consents to the taking and driving and suffers any wrong therefrom, then his remedy is something other than a prosecution under the statute for taking and driving without his consent.”

The above statute was evidently enacted for the purpose of providing punishment for the taking and operating of an automobile or other motor vehicle, or causing the same to be taken and operated, without the consent of the owner, under circumstances not amounting to larceny.

[1] The taking...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • People v. Hayward
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 15, 1983
    ...Highway Traffic, Sec. 349, pp. 534-535.20 In Michigan, the first joyriding statute was enacted in 1907, 1907 P.A. 44, Sec. 1.21 181 Iowa 358, 164 N.W. 759 (1917).22 Gee v. California State Personnel Board, 5 Cal.App.3d 713, 719, 85 Cal.Rptr. 762 (1970).23 Tucker v. Lower, 200 Kan. 1, 434 P.......
  • United States v. McLaughlin, Crim. No. 967-67.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 10, 1967
    ...a violation of 22 D.C.Code § 2204. 1 In accord, People v. Alaboda, 198 App. Div. 41, 189 N.Y.S. 464 (1921). See also, State v. Boggs, 181 Iowa 358, 164 N.W. 759 (1917); Blashfield, 8A Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice §§ 5611-5616. Cf., People v. Gibson, 63 Cal.App. 2d 632, 146 P.2d......
  • Bathurst v. Turner, 88-1678
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 22, 1988
    ...than a mere acquiescence in or approval of action--here, the order of referral--which has already taken place. State v. Boggs, 181 Iowa 358, 360, 164 N.W. 759, 760 (1917) ("The word 'consent' ... should be interpreted as meaning voluntarily yielding the will to the proposition of another.........

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT