State v. Boyd

Supreme Court of Minnesota

State v. Boyd

32 N.W. 780, 36 Minn. 538, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 272

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedMay 6, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 32 N.W. 780 (State v. Boyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Boyd, 32 N.W. 780, 36 Minn. 538, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 272 (Mich. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

To render the finder of .lost property guilty of larceny in appropriating it to his own use, if is fiecessary that he found it “under circumstances which gave him knowledge or means of inquiry as to the true owner.” Pen. Code, § 425. This was so at common law. State v. Levy, 23 Minn. 104. It is not necessary that the finder should know who the owner is, but he must have such means of inquiry on that subject as to give him reason to believe that, with reasonable effort on his part, the owner will be found.

In' his instructions to the jury the learned trial judge entirely omitted this essential element, having repeatedly instructed them, in substance, that if defendant found the money on the floor, and picked it up with the intention of appropriating it to her own use, she was guilty of larceny. The evidence as to the circumstances under which she says she found the money would have fully justified the jury in finding that defendant had “knowledge or means of inquiry as to the owner,” but under the charge of the court no such question was submitted to them.

For this error a new trial must be^granted.

Order reversed.

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

Mitchell, J.

To render the finder of .lost property guilty of larceny in appropriating it to his own use, if is fiecessary that he found it “under circumstances which gave him knowledge or means of inquiry as to the true owner.” Pen. Code, § 425. This was so at common law. State v. Levy, 23 Minn. 104. It is not necessary that the finder should know who the owner is, but he must have such means of inquiry on that subject as to give him reason to believe that, with reasonable effort on his part, the owner will be found.

In' his instructions to the jury the learned trial judge entirely omitted this essential element, having repeatedly instructed them, in substance, that if defendant found the money on the floor, and picked it up with the intention of appropriating it to her own use, she was guilty of larceny. The evidence as to the circumstances under which she says she found the money would have fully justified the jury in finding that defendant had “knowledge or means of inquiry as to the owner,” but under the charge of the court no such question was submitted to them.

For this error a new trial must be^granted.

Order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 N.W. 780, 36 Minn. 538, 1887 Minn. LEXIS 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boyd-minn-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack