State v. Mullen

30 Iowa 203
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedDecember 9, 1870
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 Iowa 203 (State v. Mullen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Mullen, 30 Iowa 203 (iowa 1870).

Opinion

Cole, Ch. J.

l. CBEnraAi. deuce. The indictment charged the larceny to be in the felonious taking of one trunk, etc., of the value of $25, of the goods and chattels of one R. W. Willets, then and there in the possession of said Willets, being found, etc. Willets was a passenger on the O. B. & Q. railroad from a point' east of Burlington to that city, and his trunk was placed in the care of the baggage-master of the train he was on. The trunk was stolen from the baggage car; was missed shortly after the train arrived at Burlington; was found in the defendant’s possession; he was arrested and taken before a magistrate, by whom he was held to answer for the crime of larceny, and the trunk, etc., was delivered to its owner.

Upon the trial, the baggage-master was introduced as a witness, and testified to the foregoing facts, and was proceeding to testify as to the identity and value- of the trunk, etc., when defendant, by his counsel, objected, unless the trunk was produced, or the receipt therefor, as required by Revision, sections 5048 and 5054. That objection was overruled, and the testimony admitted; and this is the first error assigned. The sections referred to simply direct the care and disposition to be made of stolen or embezzled property when taken by the officer from the accused, and [197]*197the receipts to be given therefor; but in no manner affect or limit the competency of testimony for either the State or the accused, respecting the same. There was, therefore, no error in overruling the objection.

2. —indict-&om bafiee.ny The only other error assigned is upon the refusal to give an instruction that the jury could not find the defendant guilty under the indictment, if the property stolen was at the time “in the exclusive pos- ' session of another, who had a qualified interest in the same or a right to the possession.” The rule is very well settled that whenever a person has a special property in a thing, or holds it in trust for anotherj the property may be laid in either. As, for instance, goods left at an inn, or intrusted to a person for safe keeping, or for sale, or to a carrier to carry, cloth to a tailor to make into clothes, linen to a laundress to wash, and goods pawned for money, etc. See 2 "Whart. Am. Or. Law, § 1824, et seqr., and authorities cited. The possession of the baggage-master was the possession of the owner. The instruction was rightly refused.

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Potter
195 Iowa 163 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1922)
United States v. Kambeitz
256 F. 247 (N.D. New York, 1919)
State v. Wasson
101 N.W. 1125 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Iowa 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mullen-iowa-1870.