State v. Brown
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Cedar District Court. Larceny : delivery procured by fraud : recent possession, eto. — The defendant and one Charles Ferguson were jointly indicted for stealing a mare, belonging to Mrs. Mary Carpenter. It does not appear from tbe record whether Ferguson ’ bad been arrested or tried. Tbe defendant, Brown, pleaded not guilty, and was tried to a jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Cedar District Court. Larceny : delivery procured by fraud : recent possession, eto. — The defendant and one Charles Ferguson were jointly indicted for stealing a mare, belonging to Mrs. Mary Carpenter. It does not appear from tbe record whether Ferguson ’ bad been arrested or tried. Tbe defendant, Brown, pleaded not guilty, and was tried to a jury. On tbe trial, tlie evidence showed, that tbe mare in question strayed from Mrs. Carpenter, the owner, a resident of Cedar county, on Friday, March 27, 1868, and was taken up as an estray in the same county on the Sunday following…
1Opinion of the Court
Dillon, Oh. J.
l. ckihotai. sories.acces I. The District Court, in its charge to the jury, after defining larceny, instructed them, “that if they believed from the evidence that the defendant procured Ferguson to take the mare, then the act of Ferguson is the act of the defendant for the purposes of this trial.”
The first point made by the defendant on this appeal, , is thus stated in the printed argument of his counsel: “ Larceny implies, in all cases, a tortious taking. There can be np larceny without a trespass. When property is sun’endered voluntarily by the owner or a person having *564the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. LeeperSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Hill v. North River InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1922
- Mason v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
- State v. ConverseUtah Supreme Court · 1911
- A. C. Nelsen Auto Sales, Inc. v. TurnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1950
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.