State v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 01 October 1895
• Citation: 64 N.W. 266,95 Iowa 341
• Parties: STATE v. WILSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

95 Iowa 341

64 N.W. 266

STATE

v.WILSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 1, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Des Moines county; James D. Smythe, Judge.

Defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of larceny from a building in the nighttime. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for the term of three years, and appeals. Affirmed.W. W. Dodge, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Geo. S. Tracy, for the State.

DEEMER, J.

The indictment accuses the defendant of stealing the following described property, to wit: “One satchel, $10.00; one revolver and holder, $13.00; railroad maps, $1.00; eyeglasses, $2.50; monkey wrench, 40 cents; stockings, 60 cents; one hat, $1.00; one pen and holder, 10 cents; and railroad tickets, $100.00,--the more particular description and number of which is to the grand jury unknown. Said tickets being instruments whereby an obligation is created, and upon which the value might be collected; and the said tickets were receipts to said J. J. Budd. The aforesaid property being of the separate value aforesaid, and of the aggregate value of $128.60.” It appears from the testimony that the J. J. Budd named in the indictment is a conductor on the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad; that on the evening of the 11th day of July, 1894, he left his valise, containing the property described in the indictment,--other than the satchel,--upon a seat in the ladies' waiting room in the railway depot at the city of Burlington while he went to the baggage room. Upon his return in a few minutes he discovered that the valise, with its contents, had been stolen. The defendant had been seen around the depot in the evening, and on the 13th day of July was arrested with the stolen revolver, wrench, penholder, stockings, and maps in his possession. The property so found was not worth to exceed $16.60. Defendant was found guilty of the crime for which he was indicted as above stated, and the jury found the value of the property taken to be $23.45.

1. Appellant's first contention is that the court erred in admitting testimony as to the theft of the railway tickets, and in instructing that they can be the subject of larceny. Turning to the record, we discover that the instruction complained of, which is numbered 6, was given at the request of defendant, and he is in no position to complain of it. No objections were made as to the “coupon” and other ticket; and to the question calling for the value of the tickets when stolen the defendant objected, after the answers were given, as follows: “Objected to. Overruled, and exception.” It is apparent that no question is as yet presented for our consideration. We find, in addition, the following record: “The defendant moves to strike from the record all the testimony of the witness Budd relatingto the stealing of the tickets, as described in the indictment, for the reason that the evidence is incompetent and improper, and for the further fact that the tickets have been shown to have had no value, and were worthless, except for the value of the paper on which they were printed at the time they were stolen. Motion ruled upon by the court in instructions to the jury.” Here there is no ruling except as appears in the instructions, and the instruction with reference to this subject was given at defendant's request. It is insisted, however, that railway tickets, after they have been taken up and punched by the conductor, are not covered by our statutes with reference to larceny. The provisions of our Code, so far as material, are as follows:

“Sec. 3902. If any person steal, take and carry away of the property of another, * * * any contract in force, * * * or any receipt, release or defeasance, or any instrument or writing whereby any demand, right or obligation is created, increased, extinguished or diminished, he is guilty of larceny.”

“Sec. 3914. If the property stolen consist of any bank note, bond, bill, covenant, bill of exchange, draft, order or receipt or any evidence of debt whatever; * * * or any instrument whereby any demand, right or obligation may be assigned, transferred, created, increased, released, extinguished or diminished, the money due thereon or secured thereby, and remaining unsatisfied, or which in any event or contingency might be collected thereon, or the value of the property transferred or affected as the case may be, shall be adjudged the value of the thing stolen.”

The evidence shows that the railroad tickets referred to in the indictment were of two kinds, to wit, “local” and “coupon.” The local tickets were sold by the agents of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad, good between points on its own line; and the coupon tickets were sold by some other road, for through transportation from some point off the line to some point either on or beyond the line of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad. The company selling these coupon tickets collected full fare, and became responsible to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Company for its proportion of the charge. The testimony further shows that the coupons torn off by the conductor of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Company were of value to the company, both as a receipt and as evidence of a debt due it from the line selling the...