State v. Loomis

• Decision Date: 13 December 1905
• Parties: STATE v. LOOMIS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

129 Iowa 141

105 N.W. 397

STATE

v.LOOMIS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 13, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Clayton County; L. E. Fellows, Judge.

Defendant was indicted for the larceny of logs in the Mississippi river. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution a motion to direct a verdict for defendant was sustained, and the state appeals. Affirmed.Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., Kenline & Roedell, and Lane & Waterman, for the State.

D. D. Murphy and J. D. Corlett, for appellee.

McCLAIN, J.

The offense charged was the larceny of logs as defined in Code, § 4834, and the logs were described as the property of one Chute. It is fundamental that in a prosecution for larceny the ownership of the stolen goods must be alleged, and proven as alleged. State v. Repp, 104 Iowa, 305, 73 N. W. 829, 40 L. R. A. 687, 65 Am. St. Rep. 463;State v. Wasson, 126 Iowa, 320, 101 N. W. 1125, and authorities cited. The evidence as to the ownership of Chute was that the logs found in defendant's possession bore certain marks, indicating that they had at one time belonged to certain lumber companies, and that these lumber companies had, by a joint instrument signed by them, assigned to Chute “all of the rights, title, and interest of each and all of the subscribers hereto in and to any and all logs which have heretofore been picked up or found, or which may be hereafter picked up or found in the Mississippi river below the gap of the assorting booms of the St. Paul Boom Company [or certain other described rivers], “outside of rafts or brails made up in booms of the St. Paul Boom Company,” etc.; “also any and all logs which have heretofore been, or may hereafter be, taken from any raft, brail, boom, or other body of logs on the Mississippi river * * * by any person or persons, firm or corporation without the consent and authority of the lawful owner of any of such as are lost hereinbefore mentioned, together with any and all right and rights of action against any person or persons, firm or corporation who have heretofore, or may hereafter, pick up, or in any manner take or convert, any such logs as are hereinbefore mentioned and conveyed or intended so to be conveyed,” etc.

Without further setting out the instrument it is sufficient to say that the evident purpose was to convey to Chute the title to all stray logs belonging to the signers of the instrument, which shoud be found within the described waters. It is evident therefore that to establish the ownership in Chute, as laid in the indictment, it was necessary for the state to prove that the logs found in defendant's possession belonged to some of the subscribers to the document at the time that they became separated from the rafts or brails of logs belonging to such owners, or at the time that they became lost or strayed. There is no evidence in the record of such ownership, unless such evidence is furnished by the fact that the logs found in the possession of the...