State v. Russell

• Decision Date: 08 May 1894
• Citation: 90 Iowa 493,58 N.W. 890
• Parties: STATE v. RUSSELL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

90 Iowa 493

58 N.W. 890

STATE

v.RUSSELL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 8, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Wapello county; W. I. Babb, Judge.

The defendant was jointly indicted with Spencer Gile for the crime of feloniously breaking and entering a certain railroad car, with intent to commit larceny. The defendant Russell was separately arraigned, tried, and convicted, and adjudged to be confined in the penitentiary at Ft. Madison at hard labor for one year, from which judgment he appeals. Affirmed.W. A. Work and J. F. Blake, for appellant.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., and Walsh & Lewis, for the State.

GIVEN, J.

1. The state called Thomas Healy, who testified that he was engaged in the hardware business in Ottumwa; that in June, 1891, he ordered a bill of hardware from a firm in New York, including one dozen pocket knives of a certain make, through a traveling agent of said firm, who wrote the order down. Mr. Healy was permitted to testify, over defendant's objections, that the order included pocket knives of a kind which he had previously seen; that a knife shown him, marked as an exhibit, was a similar pattern to the knives he bought. Mr. Healy testified, without objection, that he received an invoice for the goods ordered, including the knives, and that he received a box containing all the articles except the knives. He also identified five knives shown him as of the same class and pattern as the knives he had ordered. Appellant contends that the testimony of Mr. Healy objected to was improperly admitted, for the reason that it does not tend to show that the pocket knives ordered were in the car. The evidence tends to establish two facts, namely, that, with other articles, Mr. Healy ordered one dozen pocket knives of a particular make, and that he received a box containing the other articles, but not the knives. We think this evidence was clearly admissible and important, when considered in connection with other evidence tending to show that the box received by Mr. Healy was in the car that is alleged to have been entered.

2. Spencer Gile having been examined as a witness on behalf of the state, the court instructed the jury that he “is what is known as an accomplice, according to his own testimony,” and further instructed as follows: “Under the laws of this state, a person cannot be convicted upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence in the case as shall tend to connect the defendant with...