State v. Frankel
| Decision Date | 06 March 1919 |
| Court | Court of General Sessions of Delaware |
| Parties | STATE v. MORRIS FRANKEL and ISAAC RAPOPORT |
Court of General Sessions for New Castle County, March Term, 1919.
INDICTMENT No. 86, March Term, 1919.
Morris Frankel and Isaac Rapoport were jointly indicted for receiving stolen goods. The jury disagreed.
The state introduced evidence to show that the accused were engaged as partners, in the city of Wilmington, as junk dealers; that one Clarence Blanchfield, after ascertaining that the accused bought secondhand furniture, represented to Rapoport, one of the accused, that his (Blanchfield's) mother had recently died, and that he had for sale, in a house out of Wilmington, which he would point out, some secondhand furniture which had belonged to her; that Rapoport, accompanied by Blanchfield, went in a wagon to a temporarily unoccupied colonial house of a Mrs. Helen R Bradford, up a lane, off a public road leading from Wilmington; that the two entered the house through a French window which opened onto a side porch; that Rapoport offered and Blanchfield accepted, $ 6 for all the furniture in the house; that one load of the furniture was thereupon removed from the house, hauled to and unloaded at the store of the two accused partners, in Wilmington, where Frankel, the other accused, first saw it; that Rapoport accompanied by Blanchfield, then returned to the house for another load, and while on the way out the lane with a second load they were stopped by a man who lived in the neighborhood and to whom at that time, Blanchfield admitted his representation to Rapoport as to his ownership of the property was false, and the second load was returned to and placed in the house; that in the meantime a part of the furniture which had been delivered at the store was sold by Frankel, for $ 50, to an antique furniture dealer of Wilmington, from whom it was subsequently recovered.
The accused each denied guilty knowledge of the fact that the property was being stolen at the time it was purchased and taken from the house, and gave proof, without controverting testimony on the part of the state, that on the evening of the day the furniture was hauled from the house, Mrs Bradford, the owner thereof, accompanied by a police officer, called upon them and made known to them that the property taken was hers, and that upon this information, the property sold to the antique furniture dealer was recovered, and that they returned to him the $ 50 which they had received from him for the furniture delivered to him.
The state requested the court to charge the jury as in State v. Freedman, 3 Pennewill, 403, 53 A. 356.
For the accused, Rapoli on Larceny and Kindred Offenses, § 311, was cited.
The jury disagreed.
David J. Reinhardt, Atty.-Gen., and P. Warren Green, Deputy Atty.-Gen., for the State.
Philip L. Garrett for accused.
OPINION
BOYCE, J., charging the jury in part:
The indictment in this case was found under Rev. Code 1915, § 4741, which is:
"Whoever shall buy, receive, or conceal, any money, goods, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial