State v. Scott

• Citation: 113 N.W. 758,136 Iowa 152
• Parties: STATE v. SCOTT.
• Decision Date: 12 November 1907
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

136 Iowa 152

113 N.W. 758

STATE

v.SCOTT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 12, 1907.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; James A. Howe, Judge.

The defendant was indicted upon the charge of receiving stolen property. There was a verdict of guilty, and from a judgment rendered thereon he has appealed to this court. Affirmed.John Newburn and J. D. Wallingford, for appellant.

H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., and Chas. W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WEAVER, C. J.

But three errors are assigned as grounds for a reversal of the judgment appealed from, and these we will consider in the order stated by counsel in their brief.

1. Appellant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty. We are quite clear that the point is not well taken. Without going into minute details, we will say the evidence tends to show that at the date of the alleged offense the appellant was, and for some time had been, a saloon keeper in the city of Des Moines. Among his customers were Datus Bucher and David Bucher, brothers, who were employés of the Hawkeye Transfer Company, a concern engaged in the business of storing, transferring, and shipping various kinds of merchandise, including stoves and farm machinery and utensils. In the fall of the year 1905, the Buchers stole from the warehouse of their employer a sulky plow, which they sold to the appellant at about one-half its fair retail value. Later, the appellant sold the plow to a farmer, in whose possession it was found and restored to the Hawkeye Transfer Company. If the testimony of the Buchers is to be believed--and their credibility was for the jury to determine--there is not the slightest doubt that the appellant received the plow knowing it to have been stolen. Moreover, he himself admits that he knew the plow was delivered to him from the warehouse of the transfer company, but seeks to avoid the unfavorable inference to be derived from this fact by the claim that one of the Buchers represented that he was authorized to sell the plow for storage charges. The weight to be given to this explanation was also for the jury, and, in view of all the conceded circumstances of the case, it is not at all strange that they refused to credit it.

2. The case against the appellant was further strengthened by proof that from time to time during a comparatively brief period, including the date of the theft of the plow, the Buchers had sold and delivered to the appellant other articles of farm machinery, a range, and several heating stoves, all of which were stolen from the same warehouse and...