Bell v. State

20 Wis. 599
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJune 15, 1866
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 20 Wis. 599 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bell v. State, 20 Wis. 599 (Wis. 1866).

Opinion

Dixon, C. J.

Tbe words “tbe dwelling-house of Oscar,’C Ferris,” mean tbat tbe building broken and entered was bis place of residence, and tbat be occupied it as such at tbe time of tbe breaking and entry. An averment in this form is good in tbe common law indictment for burglary and larceny, and under tbe English statute, and tbe same is true under our statute. E. S., cb. 165, secs. 9 and 10.

Under section 9, no doubt, for tbe higher offense of breaking and entering a dwelling bouse in tbe night time, with intent to commit tbe crime of murder, rape, larceny &c., tbe offender being armed with a dangerous weapon at tbe time of such breaking and entering, or so arming himself in such bouse, or making an actual assault on any person lawfully therein, tbe indictment must charge tbat there was some person then lawfully in tbe bouse at tbe time. There being some person lawfully therein is, by tbe statute, one of tbe facts necessary to constitute tbe offense. If a thief, breaking and entering to steal armed with a dangerous weapon, or so arming himself in tbe bouse, should find there another thief who bad broken and entered for tbe same purpose, or, not being armed, should assault such other thief — or if two thieves should break and enter together armed, or arming themselves with dangerous weapons, or, being without such weapons, should fall out, and one make an assault upon tbe other, there being no other person in tbe bouse [602]*602—it is clear tbat tbe offense described by section 9 would not be complete, and the offender could not be punished under it. But in section 10 the condition, “ any person then being lawfully therein,” is omitted. This indictment was drawn, and the plaintiffs in error tried, convicted and sentenced, under that section. Under that section the indictment is good. Such an indictment need not negative the being armed or arming with a dangerous weapon, or the mating of an assault upon a person lawfully in the house, necessary to constitute the higher offense named in the preceding section. Rex v. Pearce, Russ. & Ryan’s C. C., 174; Rex v. Robinson, id., 320.

By the Court.— Convictions affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crystal River Lumber Co. v. Knight Turpentine Co.
67 So. 974 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1915)
Gillotti v. State
116 N.W. 252 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1908)
Philadelphia Mortgage & Trust Co. v. City of Omaha
57 L.R.A. 150 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1902)
Gresley v. State ex rel. Neireiter
24 N.E. 332 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1890)
Jordan v. Sayre
24 Fla. 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1888)
State v. Kane
23 N.W. 488 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)
Curtis v. Gooding
99 Ind. 45 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Ladd & Tilton v. Mason
10 Or. 308 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1882)
Conyers v. Mericles
75 Ind. 443 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Wis. 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-wis-1866.