Case ID: wheel-cr-cas_1/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People vs. Thomas Cochrane.
    it is the inc°^¡ rime, and it f,e0 impartial comparison"^ a11 tiie cirth“case.”63 °
    Leach’s eas® vol. i. p. 303.
    
      Misdemeanor.
    
    Thomas Cochrane was charged with receiving stolen goods, knowing they were stolen. The state of this case was as follows : the prisoner came to Boggs and Thompson’s store on the 5th of August, and left them a quantity of fine goods for sale, telling them he had bought the goods of a young man whom he named, and had more of the same kind. From circumstances attending the situation of the goods, no regular invoice, or bill of parcels, the marks on some pieces being effaced, &c. the auctioneer was sus- ... , . . picious they were not properly obtained : he communicated his suspicions to Mr. Austin, whom he knew had lost goods of the same description, a short time before. Mr. Austin came to his store, and upon an examination of the 1 x goods, identified them as his oxvn. The sale of the goods was to take place the same afternoon, at which sale the PT^soaeL' was to attend. Mr. Austin placed his brother in store to intercept him when he came to attend the sale, which was effected.
    The prisoner was arrested and brought to the police . office : he said the goods had been left at his house by one Stephens, who it seems by the examination of the prisoner, had left the city, and had given him a letter of instructions how to sell them. In questions put to the prisoner how he came to take goods to sell under the particular circumstances of these, not having the regular invoice, and bill of parcels, the usual marks, &c. he replied, Mr. Stephen’s told him they were smuggled by him; and upon being asked if he took a New York paper, and if he was not informed of the robbery of Haggerty and Austin’s store, replied in the affirmative. The goods, which consisted of fine cambrics and silk hose, &c. were crammed in a trunk without any order, and notin the usual method observed among merchants.
    After being arrested and taken to the police-office, he went to the City Hotel, and other places, to find the person from -whom he obtained the goods, but without effect. However, the same evening he was arrested at the prisoner’s house,-and by his direction. It proved to be William Robertson, who was subsequently convicted for the of-fence of stealing these and other goods. Robertson was arrested and committed to Bridewell, and the prisoner bailed. Before this, however, the prisoner, in company with Mr. Austin and an officer, went up to his house, and a search was made for the remainder of the property, which was found in the garret, in a trunk, except a few pieces in the store, and a few pieces sold to the .neighboring storekeepersthese were all identified and proved by Austin, to be the same property taken from his store.
    Robertson was produced as a witness by the proseentor, and refused to answer any questions in relation the goods.
    The defendant produced a number of witnesses, who swore that he was aman of the most unexceptionable character, that he had long been known to them ; that he was a watch maker, and had arrived in this country about fifteen years ago from Scotland ; that he had worked at his trade a number of years, but finding it fail, had recourse to kéeping a small dry good store, and that they always believed him to be an honest, industrious man. .
    
      Price, his counsel,
    submitted the case to the jury without making any observations.
    
      Maxwell, District Attorney,
    said that he had no dispo-
    sition to press this case, but that he thought it his duty to make some remarks to the jury; and that afterwards if the jury should think he was not guilty, he should rejoice in .his acquittal ; but if Cochrane was not a guilty man, he was a very imprudent one. About six weeks before the date of this charge, the store of Haggerty and Austin was robbed to a large amount; that robbery and the particulars of it was published in the New York papers, some of which the defendant took ; that he must have known of the robbery, appears almost impossible not to believe. That the manner of receiving the goods was calculated to awaken the suspicion of a prudent man.
    The goods were crammed promiscuously in a trunk without order, or that method supposed to be attended to among dealers in that article; the transaction was a secret one ; at the time he ¿received the goods, according to his own story, They were said to be smuggled by Robertson ; he ma]jes no inquiry about Robertson, or how he obtained the goods, he left them in small quantities at different Places) &C.
   By the Court.

“The enormity and prevalence of this “ crime is great. It is our duty to punish it whenever and “ wherever it can be detected ; for if facilities was not i “ given to felony, to vend articles stolen, fewer robbe- “ ries would be committed. The case before us is one of “ doubt; the prisoner received the goods ; how did he “ receive them ? his intent can be made out only from “ an impartial view of all the circumstances taken togeth- “ er. The intention at the time constitutes the offence. If “ you think he received them knowing they were stolen, “ he ought to be convicted, otherwise he ought to be ac- “ quitted.

“ The Court will pass a few circumstances that are im- “ portant in this case ; and first, of those circumstances “ that make against him.

“ 1st. He bought them at a reduced price.

“2d. The amount was large, being from $1500 to “ $1700.

“ 3d. They wé're received of a young man he did not “ know.

4th. They were thrown in a trunk in a confused and “ crowded manner.

“ 5th. The trunk was found in a room up stairs, and not in his store.

“ Second. There are other circfimstances that operate “ in his.favor.

“ 1st. He goes in the day time to Boggs and Thomp- “ son’s store, which is but a few doors from Haggerty and Austin’s store.

“ 2d. He tells Mr. Thompson he had more of the same “ kind of goods.

“ 3d. He told Mr. Thompson he would be present at “ the Sal6, '

“ 4th. The original marks, with a few exceptions, were “ allowed to remain on the goods ; and after being ar- “ rested.

“ 5th. Goes to the City Hotel after the thief.

“ 6th. Robertson, the real thief, upon being brought “ into Court, refused to answer.

“ Prom a fair view and comparison of these facts, it re- mains for the jury to say whether Cochrane is guilty of u receiving these goods, knowing they were stolen, or “ not.”

The jury retired, and returned in Court with a verdict of acquittal.

Note.—In Bract. I. Edw. III. it is said, that anciently attempts upon the life of another were adjudged felony : the will, it was said, was taken for the fact. But now the law is altered. It does not punish unless the intent is carried into execution, except in cases of treason, where the intendment, if satisfactorily proved by circumstances, may be, and is punished without the intent being executed. 3 Inst. 108. The intention, however, is yet the principal ingredient of crime. The intention of force and violence makes riots criminal. 3 Inst.

If a man entering a tavern commits a trespass, the law will adjudge that he ■ originally intended it. 8 Rep. See also the case of King v. Randall, Leach’s Cases, 303. 3d edit. Hawk. P. C. Cas. 12. sec. 12. Cas. 45. sec. 7. Cas. 45. sec. 2. Plow. 355.

In Hagerman’s case, City Hail Rec. vol. 3. p. 73. it was held that the intent to kill is presumed from the means used which were calculated to produce death.

■ And in James Gordon’s case, City Hall Rec. it was decided that the intent to ravish might be presumed from acts indicative of that intention. City Hall Rec. vol. 3. p. 73.