State v. Peterson

• Citation: 25 N.W. 780,67 Iowa 564
• Parties: STATE v. PETERSON.
• Decision Date: 12 December 1885
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

67 Iowa 564

25 N.W. 780

STATE

v.PETERSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 12, 1885.

Appeal from Hardin district court.

The defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the crime of larceny from a building in the night-time, and he appeals.T. H. Milner, for appellant, John Peterson.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. On the night of the seventh of August, 1883, the jewelry store of J. W. Smith, at Union, Hardin county, was broken into and entered, and money, jewelry, and watches, of the value of about $700, were stolen therefrom. The defendant, Peterson, and one Maurice and Stephens were arrested about three days after the crime was committed, at Moline, Illinois, with nearly all of the stolen property in their possession. They were brought to Hardin county and jointly indicted for the crime. They demanded separate trials, and the defendant, Peterson, was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for 10 years. There was no direct evidence that the three persons named stole the money and property. The evidence shows, however, that they were traveling about the country together for a month or more preceding the time of the larceny. They were at Union, at Marshalltown, at Grundy Center, and at other places. They had no occupation or business. They each passed under one name at one place and another name at another place. When they traveled, they usually adopted that inexpensive mode of conveyance known as free rides on freight trains. They were at Marshalltown on the evening before the crime was committed, which place is some 20 miles by rail from Union, and there was a tr in from the former place to the latter early in the night. When arrested at Moline they pretended not to be acquainted with each other. They stopped at a hotel, and the defendant, Peterson, delivered a satchel, which contained most of the stolen goods, to the hotel clerk. After he was arrested he denied being the owner of the satchel. These facts are not disputed. The defendant, Peterson, testified as a witness in his own behalf. He stated that he was in Marshalltown all of the night of August 7, and on the next day he went fishing and found the stolen goods partially covered with grass, and that he borrowed the satchel and put the the goods in it, and on that night he started with the goods in the satchel, and made his way for Moline, traveling mostly on freight trains.

As is usual with men of this character, they were defended at the expense of the county by counsel appointed by the court, and their counsel, not being content with the judgment of the court below, applied to this court for leave to present the appeal in writing, and an order to that effect was made. A written abstract of 196 pages was filed, and it is so illegibly written as to be almost impossible to read, and the brief and argument of counsel was written by the same hand. The attorney general, probably appreciating the difficulty in deciphering the record as presented by the appellant, has caused a complete abstract of the record to be presented, and, as this abstract is not denied, we are thus enabled to dispose of the case. Counsel for appellant makes some objection to rulings upon the introduction of the evidence. In some of these objections he does not cite us to what part of his abstract the evidence is to be found, and when he does cite us to the page no such evidence or ruling is to be found. His abstract is not indexed. Accepting the abstract...