Commonwealth v. Titus

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Commonwealth v. Titus

116 Mass. 42, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 15

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 6, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 116 Mass. 42 (Commonwealth v. Titus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Titus, 116 Mass. 42, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 15 (Mass. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

The rulings and instructions at the trial were quite as favorable to the defendant as the great weight, if not the unanimous concurrence, of the cases cited on either side at the argument would warrant.

The finder of lost goods may lawfully take them into his possession, and if he does so without any felonious intent at that time, a subsequent conversion of them to his own use, by whatever intent that conversion is accompanied, will not constitute larceny. But if, at the time of first taking them into his posses[45]*45sion, he has a felonious intent to appropriate them to his own use and to deprive the owner of them, and then knows or has the reasonable means of knowing or ascertaining, by marks on the goods or otherwise, who the owner is, he may be found guilty of larceny.

It was argued for the defendant that it would not be sufficient that he might reasonably have ascertained who the owner was; that he must at least have known at the time of taking the goods that he had reasonable means of ascertaining that fact. But the instruction given did not require the jury to be satisfied merely that the defendant might have reasonably ascertained it, but that at the time of the original taking he either knew or had reasonable means of knowing or ascertaining who the owner was. Such a finding would clearly imply that he had such means within his own knowledge, as well as within his own possession or reach, at that time.

It was further argued that evidence of acts of the defendant, subsequent to the original finding and taking, was wrongly admitted, because such acts might have been the result of a purpose subsequently formed. But the evidence of the subsequent acts and declarations of the defendant was offered and admitted, as the bill of exceptions distinctly states, for the single purpose of proving, so far as it tended to do so, the intent with which the defendant originally took the property into his possession at the time of finding it. And the bill of exceptions does not state what the acts and declarations admitted in evidence were, and consequently does not show that any of them had no tendency to prove that intent, nor indeed that any acts were proved except such as accompanied and gave significance to distinct admissions of the intent with which the defendant originally took the goods.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Gray, C. J.

The rulings and instructions at the trial were quite as favorable to the defendant as the great weight, if not the unanimous concurrence, of the cases cited on either side at the argument would warrant.

The finder of lost goods may lawfully take them into his possession, and if he does so without any felonious intent at that time, a subsequent conversion of them to his own use, by whatever intent that conversion is accompanied, will not constitute larceny. But if, at the time of first taking them into his posses[45]*45sion, he has a felonious intent to appropriate them to his own use and to deprive the owner of them, and then knows or has the reasonable means of knowing or ascertaining, by marks on the goods or otherwise, who the owner is, he may be found guilty of larceny.

It was argued for the defendant that it would not be sufficient that he might reasonably have ascertained who the owner was; that he must at least have known at the time of taking the goods that he had reasonable means of ascertaining that fact. But the instruction given did not require the jury to be satisfied merely that the defendant might have reasonably ascertained it, but that at the time of the original taking he either knew or had reasonable means of knowing or ascertaining who the owner was. Such a finding would clearly imply that he had such means within his own knowledge, as well as within his own possession or reach, at that time.

It was further argued that evidence of acts of the defendant, subsequent to the original finding and taking, was wrongly admitted, because such acts might have been the result of a purpose subsequently formed. But the evidence of the subsequent acts and declarations of the defendant was offered and admitted, as the bill of exceptions distinctly states, for the single purpose of proving, so far as it tended to do so, the intent with which the defendant originally took the property into his possession at the time of finding it. And the bill of exceptions does not state what the acts and declarations admitted in evidence were, and consequently does not show that any of them had no tendency to prove that intent, nor indeed that any acts were proved except such as accompanied and gave significance to distinct admissions of the intent with which the defendant originally took the goods.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 Mass. 42, 1874 Mass. LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-titus-mass-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack