State v. Gerrish

• Decision Date: 16 December 1885
• Citation: 2 A. 129,78 Me. 20
• Parties: STATE v. GERRISH.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

2 A. 129

78 Me. 20

STATE

v. GERRISH.¹

SUPREME COURT OF MAINE.

Filed December 16, 1885.

This was an indictment for concealing stolen goods. The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and the respondent filed a motion in arrest of judgment. The presiding judge overruled the motion, and the respondent excepted.

Frank M. Higgins, Co. Atty., for the State.

Copeland & Edgerly, for respondent.

PETERS, C. J. The indictment charges the concealing of stolen goods, described in this manner: "One box containing about twenty pounds of tobacco; one chest of tea; thirty pairs of shoes; and ten pairs of boots,— all of great value, to-wit, of the value of seventy-five dollars." Several matters are presented, under the motion in arrest, which we cannot consider, because they arise outside of the indictment. The only point presented under the motion that may be seen upon the indictment itself is that the goods are collectively instead of separately valued. But this does not render the indictment void. It may have made it difficult to maintain. The point relied on by the defense is that, inasmuch as all the alleged goods were not stolen and concealed, the entire value of the property may have attached to the goods which were not stolen, the others being valueless. But the indictment itself discloses no such weakness. The presumption arising from a general and unqualified verdict is that all the goods were stolen and secreted. The verdict saves the indictment, rendering the whole record good. State v. Hood, 51 Me. 363; Com. v. Lavery, 101 Mass. 207; 2 Bish. Crim. Proc. (3d Ed.) § 714.

The counsel for the respondent asserts that, as a matter of fact, all the articles were not stolen, and produces a copy of the evidence for our examination that we may see that they were not. But that is a matter of proof and not of pleading. To meet any defect of proof the remedy would have been to request rulings appropriate to the facts, if not given without request. Or a motion to set the verdict aside, as being against the proof, would have reached the alleged difficulty. The point is presented to us only upon exceptions to a refusal to sustain a motion in arrest.

In the bill of exceptions a point is made upon the ruling of the judge in another question. It is inferable from the exceptions that there was no evidence introduced to show what the goods, or any of them, were worth, or whether worth anything or not. That is, no witness testified specifically upon the question of...