State v. Buren

• Decision Date: 16 January 1918
• Citation: 102 A. 981,30 Del. 79
• Court: Court of General Sessions of Delaware
• Parties: STATE v. FRED VON BUREN

102 A. 981

30 Del. 79

STATE v. FRED VON BUREN

Court of General Sessions of Delaware, New Castle County

January 16, 1918

Court of General Sessions, New Castle County, January Term, 1918.

INDICTMENT FOR LARCENY, No. 19, January Term, 1918.

Fred Von Buren was indicted and tried for the larceny of two diamond rings. Verdict, guilty.

On the morning of November first, 1917, the accused went into the jewelry store of B., in the City of Wilmington, and engaged in conversation with Miss P., a clerk in the store, who was at the time, arranging certain articles of jewelry in the front show window. She had placed six rings in the window including the two diamond rings in question, valued at about forty dollars and seventy dollars respectively, when she was called to the rear of the store, leaving the accused at the window. Upon her return the accused arose and left, saying he would see her at noon and take her out to lunch. Miss P. then discovered that the two diamond rings were missing and notified her employer. The accused not returning at noon, the city detective department was notified. The department, B and Miss P. during the afternoon sought in vain to locate Von Buren, who early in the evening of the same day called Miss P. over the telephone at her residence and stated that he did not return to the store at noon because he had to go to Carney's Point, and during the conversation asked Miss P if she had missed anything. She admitted that she had missed the two diamond rings. He informed her that he had taken the rings as a joke. and would bring them out to her, which later in the evening he did. Miss P. notified the detective department that Von Buren had returned the rings, claiming that he had taken them as a joke Two detectives thereupon went to the house of Miss P. and arrested him upon the charge of larceny preferred by B. Von Buren offered to pay B. for the lost time and expense which he had occasioned, saying both to the police officers and to B. that his taking the rings was merely a joke.

Counsel for the accused interposed objection to the comment of the Attorney General to the jury upon the fact that the defendant had failed to prove his good reputation for honesty and fair dealing. The objection was overruled upon the authority of State v. Davis, 3 Penne. 220, 50 A. 99.

At the conclusion of the arguments to the jury, counsel for defendant requested the court to instruct them to ignore any remarks made by the Attorney General in his closing address, except those in reply to the address made for the defendant, contending that the Attorney General is precluded from bringing in any new matter in his closing address.

Verdict, guilty.

David J. Reinhardt, Attorney General, and Percy Warren, Green Deputy Attorney General, for the state.

Philip L. Garrett...