People v. Bishop

<p>Criminal Law—Burning House to Defraud Insurers — Evidence— Holes Bored in Floor — Admissibility of Brace.—Upon the trial of a defendant charged with burning his dwelling-house with intent to defraud the insurers of the property, where it was proved • that after the fire was extinguished upon the lower floor, holes were found bored in the upper floor, with coal-oil poured around them and into them, a brace found in a cupboard in one of the upper rooms, on the day after the Are, by a witness, who was put in charge of the house by the foreman of the fire department, shortly after the fire, is admissible as a circumstance tending to show that defendant had the means at hand with which to bore the holes found in the floor.</p> <p>Id. — Testimony of Chief of Fire Department—Putting Person in • Charge of Dwelling — Unimportant Evidence. — Testimony of the chief of the fire department, that he put one of his men in charge of the building after the arrest of the defendant, and charged him not to allow any one to enter unless the chief was present, if not admissible, is too unimportant to warrant a reversal. The only matter of importance is what the person put in charge actually did.</p> <p>Id. — Odor of Coal-oil upon Clothes—Ruling without Injury.— Where it was proved that, at the time of the fire, coal-oil was found scattered around the floors and articles of furniture in different parts of the house, under circumstances pointing to guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant, evidence was admissible to show that there was odor of coal-oil on the clothes of the defendant when he was arrested; and a further statement of the witness, that there was still a slight odor of coal-oil on some of the garments brought into court and identified, which the court excluded from evidence, is without injury, where the defendant did not move to strike out such statement.</p> <p>Id. — Examination of Witnesses by Court — Remarks and Suggestions—Absence of Objection or Exception—Appeal—Presumption. — Where the court cross-examined the defendant and other witnesses of its own motion, and made remarks and suggestions, to none of which acts of the court objection was made, or any exception taken by the defendant, it is too late upon appeal to raise a question as to such matters; and where an objection was taken to the interruption of a witness by the court, and no exception was reserved, it must be presumed upon appeal that the defendant was finally satisfied that the court was right.</p> <p>Id.—Cross-examination of Defendant—Former Testimony—Stealing of Money from Vest—Hesitation and Difference Shown by Record. — Where the defendant upon examination in chief testified as to the stealing of money from his vest on the night of the fire, to raise an inference that the thief fired the house, it was competent to cross-examine him fully as to all the facts and circumstances attending the matter, and to show by comparison of his former testimony that his hesitation as to the facts appeared therein by question and answer, and that he testified with hesitation, and differently, at the first trial as to facts narrated by him at the last trial without hesitation. If his former hesitation had not appeared from the record, and his examination in chief did not show his demeanor at the first trial, his demeanor thereat could not be proved by him upon his cross-examination.</p>