State v. Gadbois

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtROBINSON
Citation89 Iowa 25,56 N.W. 272
Decision Date05 October 1893
PartiesSTATE v. GADBOIS ET AL.

89 Iowa 25
56 N.W. 272

STATE
v.
GADBOIS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 5, 1893.


Appeal from district court, Benton county; J. R. Caldwell, Judge.

The defendants were accused of the crime of burglary in the nighttime, tried by jury, found guilty, and adjudged to be imprisoned in the state penitentiary at Anamosa at hard labor for the term of six years. From that judgment they appeal.

[56 N.W. 273]

Burnham & Gaasch and D. E. Voris, for appellants.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., and Thos. A. Cheshire, for the State.


ROBINSON, C. J.

During the night of the 29th day of November, 1892, the store of W. H. Burrows & Co., in Belle Plaine, was broken into, and merchandise amounting in value to nearly $300 was stolen from it. On the 3d day of the next month the merchandise so taken was found packed in satchels and a box under the hay in certain hay barracks in the town of Watkins, about 15 miles east of Belle Plaine. During the night of that day defendant William B. Gadbois was seen to enter the barracks, and was arrested soon after he left them, and his codefendant, L. F. Widner, was arrested during the same night, within a short distance of the town.

1. The appellants contend that the evidence was not sufficient to authorize the conviction of either of them. They were not seen to commit the offense of which they are charged, none of the stolen property was found in their possession or under their control, and they have not admitted their guilt. To sustain their conviction the state relies wholly upon circumstantial evidence, which shows substantially the following: At the time of the burglary Gadbois resided in Cedar Rapids, 35 miles east of Belle Plaine; and Widner at Marion, a few miles further away. Cedar Rapids, Belle Plaine, and Watkins are on the main line of the Chicago & Northwestern Railway, and trains passed each way through them during the nighttime. A witness testified that he saw the defendants in Belle Plaine at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the day which preceded the burglary, near the store which was broken into; and another, who was a car repairer, states that he saw them in the railway yards about 9 o'clock in the evening, that he talked with them, and that they asked about the trains going out. He also states that he saw them in a store in the town an hour or two earlier. A witness testified that at about 7:30 o'clock in the morning of November 30, 1892, he saw, through a church window, in Watkins, two men moving about. He started for the church, but before he arrived two men left it and went away. They resembled the defendants, and he thinks, although he is not positive, that they were the defendants. Several witnesses testify that between 8 and 9 o'clock that morning the defendants took breakfast at the house of Joseph Brecht, 2 1/2 miles southeast of Watkins. They wore their hats pulled down over their foreheads while eating, and remained but a few minutes. An hour or two later they were seen about five miles southeast of Watkins. In the evening of December 3d, soon after the 10 o'clock train came in from the east, Gadbois was seen by persons watching to come around a corner about 25 yards north of the hay barracks. He walked towards the barracks, looked around, and then walked towards a church, which was about 50 yards in a northeasterly direction from the barracks. He walked about 30 yards, and looked west towards the schoolhouse; then walked back of the barracks, whistled twice; then walked towards the church again, looked around, and came back, went into the barracks, remained but a short time; then came out and walked rapidly northward to the corner; then turned west towards the schoolhouse, which was about 2 1/2 blocks west, and a little north of the barracks. When he turned west, the watchers, among whom was the sheriff, followed him. The sheriff called to him to “halt,” when he started to run. The sheriff fired a shot at him, and, after running about a block, he stopped, and was arrested. He was taken to a house, and asked where his partner was, and said he had no partner. He was then asked what the whistling was for, and answered, “I have nothing to say.” He afterwards said, speaking of himself, that his name was Harry Dustan, and that he lived in Chicago. At a little after 10 o'clock a man wearing a stiff hat and a light overcoat was seen driving a black horse westward about half a mile north of the town. Soon after that time a man wearing a light overcoat was seen to walk eastward towards the church along a street which led from the direction of the schoolhouse, and in a very short time he was seen to go westward towards the schoolhouse. Being informed that a man had been seen going towards the barracks, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • State v. Schenk, No. 46268.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 3, 1945
    ...himself. State v. Caine, 134 Iowa 147, 111 N.W. 443; State v. Moore, supra; State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa 557, 25 N.W. 777.State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa 25, 56 N.W. 272. In State v. Moore, supra (conspiracy), the defendant Moore and another were indicted and convicted in connection with the resista......
  • State v. Anderson, No. 52851
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 11, 1968
    ...offered as part of the state's original case * * *. State v. McCumber, 202 Iowa 1382, 1384, 212 N.W. 137, and citations; State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa 25, 31--32, 56 N.W. Herein the record reveals that the defense produced two witnesses whose testimony had the effect of providing a time alibi f......
  • State v. Weaver, No. 31557.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 9, 1918
    ...was held to be prejudicial misconduct on the part of the county attorney. The case was distinguished from State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa, 32, 56 N. W. 272, for that, in the latter case, the offer of improper evidence was not repeated, and therefore the presumption of good faith on the part of th......
  • State v. Caine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 11, 1907
    ...purpose or plan is circumstantial evidence of a confederation to effect such purpose or join in such plan. State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa, 25, 56 N. W. 272;State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa, 558, 25 N. W. 777;Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565, 14 Am. Rep. 342. An actual agreement to enter into a conspiracy......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • State v. Schenk, No. 46268.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 3, 1945
    ...himself. State v. Caine, 134 Iowa 147, 111 N.W. 443; State v. Moore, supra; State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa 557, 25 N.W. 777.State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa 25, 56 N.W. 272. In State v. Moore, supra (conspiracy), the defendant Moore and another were indicted and convicted in connection with the resista......
  • State v. Anderson, No. 52851
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 11, 1968
    ...offered as part of the state's original case * * *. State v. McCumber, 202 Iowa 1382, 1384, 212 N.W. 137, and citations; State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa 25, 31--32, 56 N.W. Herein the record reveals that the defense produced two witnesses whose testimony had the effect of providing a time alibi f......
  • State v. Weaver, No. 31557.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 9, 1918
    ...was held to be prejudicial misconduct on the part of the county attorney. The case was distinguished from State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa, 32, 56 N. W. 272, for that, in the latter case, the offer of improper evidence was not repeated, and therefore the presumption of good faith on the part of th......
  • State v. Caine
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 11, 1907
    ...purpose or plan is circumstantial evidence of a confederation to effect such purpose or join in such plan. State v. Gadbois, 89 Iowa, 25, 56 N. W. 272;State v. Stevens, 67 Iowa, 558, 25 N. W. 777;Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565, 14 Am. Rep. 342. An actual agreement to enter into a conspiracy......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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