Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

80 Mass. 376

Commonwealth v. Riggs

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 15, 1860

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1860-01-15

<p>It is foi the court to determine what the words in an indictment are, hy inspection of the writing.</p> <p>An indictment for larceny “ in a building, called and being a shop ’’ is sustained by proof of a larceny in a building kept and used for the sale of goods, and called a “store."</p> <p>On the trial of an indictment for larceny of goods, other goods may be proved to have been taken at the same time, and found with those described in the indictment in the defendant’s possession; and such goods may be exhibited to the jury, and taken by them to their room.</p> <p>It is sufficient proof of the value of the goods alleged to be stolen, if the jury are satisfied by all the evidence and by inspection of the goods, that they are of some value, though less than that alleged.</p>

Decided 1860-01-15

Metcalf, J.

¶11. Whether Shurtleff’s first name, as written in the indictment, was David or Daniel, was a question for the court, to be decided upon inspection of the writing. Commonwealth v. Davis, 10 Gray,

¶2*3782. The building in which the goods were stolen being a place sept and used for the sale of goods, was rightly denominated a shop in the indictment, conformably to the definition of the word “ shop,” by lexicographers generally, as well as by Williams and Tomlins in their law dictionaries. Besides ; no statute has prescribed a punishment for larceny in a store. That word is not found in our statutes. Hence the fact that the owner, in testifying, termed the building a store, was unimportant. Whatever name he might give to the building, it was nevertheless a shop.

¶33. The court rightly permitted Shurtleff to testify that goods not described in the indictment were taken at the same time when those therein described were taken, and that they were found in the defendant’s possession, with those described in the indictment. “ Where several felonies are connected together,” says Bayley, J., “ and form part of one entire transaction, then the one is evidence to show the character of the other.” The King v. Ellis, 6 B. & C. 147, 148, and 9 D. & R. 178. See also 1 Phil. Ev. (4th Amer. ed.) 767; Archb. Crim. Pl. (10th ed.) 109. And it is no legal ground of exception, that the jury were allowed to take into their room, with the goods alleged to have been stolen, the goods that were taken at the same time.

¶44. The jury were correctly instructed, that if they were satisfied by all the evidence, and by inspection of the goods alleged to be stolen, that they were of any value, the allegation of value in the indictment was sustained. Proof of the alleged value was not necessary. It was sufficient for conviction, that the property alleged to be stolen should be shown to be of some value, at least to the owner, if to no one else—things of no value not being the subject of larceny. 2 Deac. Crim. Law 788, 3 Greenl. Ev. § 153. Exceptions overruled

/80/mass/376 · .json · Public domain