Taylor v. State

Decision Date15 December 1891
PartiesTAYLOR v. STATE.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

130 Ind. 66
29 N.E. 415

TAYLOR
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 15, 1891.


Appeal from circuit court, Spencer county; G. L. REINHARD, Judge.

Charles Taylor was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Reversed.

[29 N.E. 416]


H. M. Logsdon, W. C. Mason, A. J. Payton, and L. B. Orsborne, for appellant. R. M. Johnson, for the State.

COFFEY, J.

The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Spencer circuit court upon a charge of robbery. He appeals to this court, and assigns as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial. It is insisted that the evidence does not support the verdict of the jury finding the appellant guilty of the charge against him. On the evening of the 9th of April, 1890, soon after dark, a short distance from the town of Rockport, David Axton, while returning home from the town in his wagon, was attacked and robbed, the person attacking him taking from his person the sum of $80. The evidence connecting the appellant with the robbery is circumstantial, and somewhat conflicting, but it cannot be said there is no evidence connecting him with the crime. We cannot disturb the verdict on the evidence.

The indictment charges that the money taken at the time of the robbery was “lawful money of the United States.” It is contended by counsel for the appellant that, for anything appearing from the evidence in the cause, the money taken may have been national bank notes, and that such proof does not sustain the charge that it was “lawful money of the United States.” Section 1750, Rev. St. 1881, provides that, “in every indictment or information *** in which it is necessary to make an averment as to any money, or bank bills or notes, United States treasury notes, postal and fractional currency, or other bills or notes issued by any lawful authority, and intended to pass and circulate as money, it shall be sufficient to describe such money, bills, notes, or currency simply as money, without specifying any particular coin, note, bill, or currency; and such allegation shall be sustained by proof of any amount of coin, or of any such note, bill, or currency, although the particular species of coin of which the amount was composed, or the particular nature of such note, bill, or currency, be not proved.” It is conceded that, if the money taken had been described simply as “money,” the proof in the case would support the indictment in this respect; but it is claimed that, inasmuch as it is described as “lawful money of the United States,” it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT