State v. Minor
| Decision Date | 10 September 1908 |
| Citation | 17 N.D. 454,117 N.W. 528 |
| Parties | STATE v. MINOR. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
The word “maliciously,” as used in section 9315, Rev. Codes 1905, relating to the crime of “malicious mischief,” is to be given a restricted meaning, and imports that the act to which it relates must have resulted from actual ill-will or revenge. It implies an intent to vex and annoy the owner of the property injured.
Malice is an essential ingredient of the crime of malicious mischief, and a conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence disclosing such malice.
Evidence examined, and held not sufficient to warrant the conviction of appellant.
Appeal from District Court, Williams County; Goss, Judge.
Moses Minor was convicted of malicious mischief, and he appeals. Reversed.Palda & Burke (Engerud, Holt & Frame, of counsel), for appellant. T. F. McCue, Atty. Gen., R. N. Stevens, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Van R. Brown, State's Atty., for the State.
The defendant was convicted in the district court of Williams county of the crime of malicious mischief, and from the judgment imposing a fine against him of $25, and costs taxed at $50, he prosecutes this appeal.
The information, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: “On the 7th day of September, 1905, at the county of Williams, in the state of North Dakota, one Moses Minor, late of the county of Williams and state aforesaid, did commit the crime of malicious mischief, committed in the manner following, to wit: That at the said time and place the above-named defendant, willfully, wrongfully, unlawfully, and maliciously did injure, deface, destroy, and remove a certain building then and there situate upon lot 16 of block 1 of the plat of Wheelock, N. D., and did then and there willfully and wrongfully, unlawfully and maliciously, by removing from shelter in said building, and otherwise, and then and there injure, deface, and destroy certain furniture, fixtures, and machinery, all of said property then and there injured, defaced, destroyed, and removed as aforesaid being then and there the personal property of one A. E. Hughes, and part of the printing plant owned by A. E. Hughes, at Wheelock, N. D., said injury to said personal property being then and there done with malicious intent had in him, said Moses Minor, to deprive said A. E. Hughes of the benefit thereof.” The evidence disclosed that defendant is and was the owner of the lot upon which said building was situate; he having purchased the same in December, 1904. Some time prior to such purchase the complaining witness Hughes moved the building thereon, under a verbal license of the then owner. It was and is defendant's contention that when he purchased said lot he had no notice that Hughes claimed to be the owner of the building, and he believed that by his purchase he acquired title to the building, as well as to the lot upon which it rested. A dispute naturally arose between these parties regarding the ownership of the building. Defendant caused notice to be served upon Hughes to vacate the premises, and, the latter not complying with such notice, defendant proceeded to and did enter said building, and removed certain personal property therein contained and belonging to Hughes from the building, leaving the same upon the public street, and he then proceeded to and did remove said building to another lot owned by him.
Appellant's assignments of error are grouped together, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiggin v. State
...of that case is sound. (State v. Mussey, (Vt.) 18 A. 895; State v. Leslie, (Ia.) 115 N.W. 897; People v. Jones, 24 Ill. 482; State v. Minor, (N. D.) 117 N.W. 528; 3d Ed. 2069.) It was essential that the word malice as used in the statute be correctly defined in an instruction, since it was ......
-
Cudworth v. Midcontinent Communications
...the Legislature has excised narrow definitions of malice from the law by legislative act. For example, in State v. Minor, 17 N.D. 454, 117 N.W. 528, 528-29 (N.D.1908), the North Dakota Supreme Court concluded that the crime of malicious mischief required evidence of "actual ill-will or reve......
-
State v. Chyle, Cr. N
...7 The old section, entitled "Malicious mischief," was read to include malice as an essential ingredient of the offense. State v. Minor, 17 N.D. 454, 117 N.W. 528 (1908). The word "maliciously," as used in the old section, had a restricted meaning, differing from that given to it generally i......
-
Rosenberg v. State
... ... Such an act ... lacks every element of malice or wantonness." Other ... decisions recognizing that principle were rendered in ... Sattler v. People, 59 Ill. 68; Dye v ... Commonwealth, 7 Grat. (48 Va.) 662; Colbert v ... State, 7 Okl. Cr. 401, 124 P. 78; State v ... Minor, 17 N.D. 454, 117 N.W. 528, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) ... 273; Reg. v. Matthews, 14 Cox Crim. Cases, 5; ... Reg. v. Langford, Carrington and Marshman, (Eng.) ... It is ... said in 2 Wharton, Criminal Law (12 Ed.) § 1325: "An ... honest belief in title is a defense to an indictment ... ...