State v. Rosencrans

• Decision Date: 21 April 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 422,9 N.D. 163
• Parties: STATE v. ROBERT ROSENCRANS
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

82 N.W. 422

9 N.D. 163

STATE v. ROBERT ROSENCRANS

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 21, 1900

Appeal from District Court, McHenry County; Morgan, J.

Robert Rosencrans was convicted of larceny, and appeals.

Affirmed.

W. J Anderson, for appellant.

John F Cowan, Attorney General, and A. J. Ames, State's Attorney, for the State.

OPINION

YOUNG J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny at the October, 1899, term of the District Court of McHenry county. A motion for a new trial was made in his behalf, and overruled, and defendant sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years and six months.

Four assignments of error are subjoined to counsel's brief as grounds for reversing the judgment of the District Court and its order refusing a new trial. These will be considered in the order assigned in the brief.

First it is urged that the verdict is clearly against the evidence, in this: that "there was no evidence to show the defendant was connected with the theft or aided in it." We may say here that the information upon which the defendant was tried and convicted charges him with the larceny of a mower and two hayrakes, all alleged to have been the property of one P. O. Kongslie, and of the value of $ 105, and that said larceny was committed on the 30th day of July 1899. It is conceded that the property described was the property of Kongslie, that it was stolen, and that it was of the value as alleged. The defendant's sole contention is that there is no evidence to connect him with the larceny. A careful examination of the evidence upon this point leads us to a different conclusion. It appears, without dispute, that the property in question was taken from the premises of the owner about August 5, 1899. It is undisputed, also, that on August 14th thereafter a portion of the property, at least, was found near the premises of the defendant, some 16 miles distant from the place where it was stolen. Kongslie, the owner, testified that he visited the premises of the defendant on the last-named date, in company with the sheriff, who had a search warrant, and that he saw all of his property there,--the two rakes in defendant's yards near his house, and the mower in a hay meadow about two and a half miles away. Both the sheriff and Kongslie testified that when they came in sight of the mower the defendant had his team hitched to it and was using it. There is evidence, also, that the defendant unhitched from it as soon as he saw them approaching, and when the sheriff met him, and asked him whose mower it was, he said he did not know. It also appears that one of the rakes which Kongslie claims to have seen in the defendant's yard, and identified as his, has not been recovered, while the other one was found by the sheriff later, submerged in a small lake about a half mile from the defendant's house, the wheels having been taken off. These facts, and others of an incriminating nature, were before the jury, in connection with the defendant's explanation of his connection with the stolen property, and were, we think, sufficient to...