State v. Rothschild
| Decision Date | 31 October 1878 |
| Citation | 68 Mo. 52 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ROTHSCHILD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.Joseph G. Lodge with Chas. P. Johnson and C. C. Simmons for appellant.
J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.
Defendant was indicted for the larceny of some United States bonds; on trial had, was convicted, which conviction was affirmed in the St. Louis court of appeals, and he now appeals here.
Counsel for defendant have filed an elaborate brief, in which they object to many of the rulings of the criminal court. We think it unnecessary to advert to many of the objections thus urged, because we think that the case was, with some exceptions to be presently noted, very well tried, and as to evidence of defendant's guilt, there was certainly enough to go to the jury for the purpose of letting them say whether the defendant had formed a larcenous intent when he picked up the bonds from the floor where they had fallen. And such unlawful intent could be legitimately inferred from the subsequent conduct of defendant in relation to the bonds; conduct which it would be somewhat difficult to explain, save upon the theory of defendant's guilty intent formed at the outset of the transaction. In this view of the case, we need not rely on the testimony of Samuels, whose testimony, he being an accomplice, should be received with appropriate caution; 1 Whart. Ev., § 414. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 380; State v. Jones, 64 Mo. 391; but may look alone to the intrinsic improbabilities of defendant's own statement. Taking only that statement as our guide, it is hard to divest the mind of the conviction that defendant's zealous solicitude and care for the safe keeping of the bonds, when he first obtained possession of them, was singularly at variance with his gross carelessness in exposing them to open view in his wardrobe, in his rooms, to which a negro boy had daily access, and which a gambler, by defendant's permission, occupied. Nor did defendant's conduct comport well with honest intention, in that he did not resort to the usual modes to discover the owner if unacquainted with him, nor to deliver the bonds to him if he was acquainted with him, as seems to have been the case. We have thought proper to allude to the evidence in this general way, because it is claimed that the weight of evidence was decidedly in favor of defendant's innocence. We do not think so.
We pass now to the consideration of those matters which must result in a reversal of the judgment. It appeared from the testimony of Samuels, that during the pendency of the prosecution, he had been induced to leave the State, and that money was paid to him by one Looney for that purpose; and the endeavor was made by the State to connect the defendant therewith. In this endeavor the witness was allowed to state that he did not know from whom the money came; that he “ expected” the money came from Rothschild. He was then asked if he had ever seen any letter that was written by Rothschild, when he replied: Not by Jimmy Rothschild, but from his brother. This question and answer were objected to, but without success. The witness was then asked: Do you know of any other witness that was tampered with? Upon this question being objected to as an assumption, the question was changed to this form: Do you know of the defendant's tampering with any witnesses? When witness answered, I don't. Similar replies were made as to whether the letter referred to was written by defendant, and as to whether witness knew the person to whom it was addressed; and as to whether witness knew of any letters having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. v. Day et al.
...the jury to disregard such evidence. Gutzweiler v. Lackman, 39 Mo. 57; Pavey v. Burch, 3 Mo. 477; Smith v. Bailey, 209 S.W. 945; State v. Rothchild, 68 Mo. 52; Vail v. N.P. Ry. Co., 313 Pac. 446. (2) The court erred in giving Instruction No. 1 at the request of defendants for the reasons th......
-
The State v. Meysenburg
... ... at such conferences, etc.; and the like line of remark ... applies to a conversation between Hospes and Stock. Such ... conversations were hearsay, pure and simple. [ State v ... Patrick, 107 Mo. 147, 17 S.W. 666; State v ... Rothschild, 68 Mo. 52; State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo ... 173; State v. Huff, 161 Mo. 459, 61 S.W. 900; ... State v. Hathhorn, 166 Mo. 229, 65 S.W. 756; ... State v. Foley, 130 Mo. 482, 32 S.W. 973; State ... v. Levy, 168 Mo. 521, 68 S.W. 562.] All these ... conversations, absent defendant, were ... ...
-
State ex rel. State Highway Com'n v. Day
...the jury to disregard such evidence. Gutzweiler v. Lackman, 39 Mo. 57; Pavey v. Burch, 3 Mo. 477; Smith v. Bailey, 209 S.W. 945; State v. Rothchild, 68 Mo. 52; Vail v. P. Ry. Co., 313 P. 446. (2) The court erred in giving Instruction No. 1 at the request of defendants for the reasons that i......
-
State v. Hogan
... ... Co., 340 Mo. 25, 100 S.W.2d ... 858. (2) The court erred in permitting State's witness, ... Harry Neubold, to testify about conversations he had with the ... State's witness, Roy Johnson, not in the presence of the ... defendant. State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173; State v ... Rothschild, 68 Mo. 52; State v. Patrick, 107 ... Mo. 147, 17 S.W. 666; State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo. 54, ... 119 S.W. 405; State v. Bowen, 247 Mo. 584, 153 S.W ... 1033; State v. Robinson, 183 S.W. 304; State v ... Johnson, 64 S.W.2d 655; Woelfle v. Connecticut Mut ... Life Ins. Co., 234 Mo.App. 135, 112 ... ...