New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-09-09
BROOKL YW ITEMS.

IMPORTANT LEGAL DEcISIoN-At the June term
of the Court Of Sessions John Bush convicted OF
burglary in the second degree for having, charged
in the dcment, forcbly entered dwellng.house in
Myrtle avenue in the day time. and stolen thererom
pair of psnaloons valued at 81 80. The apartment
the prisoner entered occupied BY John Wood, and
there several apartments in the house occupied
by different families. The Outer or hall door was
common to all the occupants. The prisoner was con-
victed Of burglary in the econd degree, and the case
wa carried up on ceyt,orori by his counsel james
Troy. to the General Term at Newburgh, when the
ruling of the lower Court set aside and new
trial granted Hon. Selsh b. Strong, ID, delivered
the opinion Of the Court in which, after relating the
facts be says:
THAT the apartments of Wood constituted his dwell
ing within the requirements of the law. 1t has been
decided that chambers in college or inn OF court,
where each individual has q distinct property, are
considered separate mansions, though under tue
same ROOT. Neither the hall door nor the door OF the
10 which defendant wac discovered VISA locked.
II those doors were shut, he had simply Unattached
them when he made his entrance. There was no one
in the apai nent when he entered it. The wife If the
tenant testified that she mad atCcd the door ABOUT II
minute before she discovered the defendant; also
that the front door latch"d and that both doors
generally KEEP. closed. The proof that the doors
had been recently shut fairly led to the inference
that they closed at the time OF entrance which
is strengthened by toe general custom. 1t IL well SET
tied that unstching a door which is latohed is a suhi
Gent breaking to constitute burglary al common law
After quoting various authorities, the JadGe
tinues:
81 think, however, the Cou,t erred in in.trucng
the Jury that It was OF burglary IN the second
degree or OF petit larceny Probably it was supposed
10 be Included in that section which provides that
eyery person who sha be convicted of breaking
into any dwelling house in the day time under such
circumstances as would constitute burglary in the
first degree il committed in the night time shall be
deemed guilty OF burglary in the second degree. To
constitute burglary in the first degree there must bs
a forcibly bursting, breaking the wall or an outer
door, window, shutter of a window, or the sock or
bot of such door or the fastening OF such window or
shutter, or breaking in any other manner beng
armed with some dangerous weapon, or with the as
sstance and aid Of one ot more c0nfederates, Ac.,
or by unlocking an outer door by means OF
false Keys or by picking the lock thereof. In this
case then was neither The to1cibly bursting eik
iBg outer door means, ir common parlance, more
than Simply lifting latch. That the LIST subdivision
Of the 10Th section Of the act must have designed
something Further is apparent from the I'd subdyl-
rio H. which provide that unlocking outer dOor, by
be sufficient breaking 10 constitute burglary IN ne
first degree. The provlsoD would have been wholly
Unnecessary if empl Enldtching the door would have
been deemed bursting breaking it within the mean
ing Of former part OF the same section. Clearly
;heTe is other statutory definition OF burglary IN tns
second degree which colnprehends the crime perpe-
treted by the defendant as proved on his trial. For
the o: the court in charging the jury thai ms
CAGE OF burglary in the second degree, or petit
larceny, and which led to az Improper CONVICTION,
such c,ion must be ret aside, and there mt De
a rev t.ial in the Cont OF General Sections.
TIE secoI trial OF the accused VA! take place at the
present tenn OF The Ses.:ons.