Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1860-07-20
Orleans County Court.


court, charging the respondent with the
crime Of larceny.
The respondent vas arrested last JAN
uary, and after hearing before the jus
tice, was held for trial in this court in the
sum of $500 bond, in default of which
he was committed. 1t appeared in evil
dence that at the time of the alleged
larceny, the respondent was tailor at
Barton, and that the property alleged to
have been stolen by him, was coat
which he had nearly completed for one
of his customers also quantity Of cloth
which had been left with him to be- made
up into garments for other customers
The testimony for the government estab-
lished that the respondent took the coat
as before stated that it was tolerabie
tit; that he put the coat On his back and
left the store. It gas also in proof that
he left the cloth above mentioned with
the barber at Barton, who was colored
man. The barber swore that he sold the
cloth to him, and that he paid therefor
| $3.50. Here the government rested
The counsel for the respondent made a
motioR to the court for nonsuit, claim
ing that the government had failed to
make out Prinaa facis case, on the
ground that the taking as proven by the
government did not amount to larceny
in iaw,--tbat the respondent was in pos
session of the property under contract
of tailment, and that if he converted it
to his own use, it was only a breach of
trust, for which trover would lle,--but
that it was no larceny, as there had been
no fetonioas taking from the possession
Of another, which is the gist of the crime.
In this case the respondent claimed that
the possession was in himSby contract,
and any consignee of it could not be a
taking from the possession of The owner
Of the goods, which would be essential to
sustain the charge as laid in the indict-
ment. The court held that the govern
ment had not established with their proof,
the crime of larceny at common law
whereupon the counsel for the govern
ment claimed that the offense which they
had proved was made larceny by the
statute. The respondents counsel in
sisted that the statute made no provisions
altering the common law upon this point,
but what the government relied upon was
such as related to the liabilities of clerks,
servants, agents and common carriers,
upon which the authorities, English as
well as American are in conflict, and
that the purpose of the statute was to
settle these doubtful points, and was to
cbiiterate well established principle of
law, such as existed in the case at law.
The court thought if there was any
doubt as - the meaning Of the statute,
that it would be well to put it in a form
to be tried by the Supreme Court, that
in case they ruled against the government,
no appeal could be taken. The case was
consequently submitted to the jury upon
these facts. 1t was put in evidence on
behalf of the respondent, that when be
> was arrested at Troy, he told the officer
that he was intending to return to Bar
ton. 1t was also proved that he had
: hired man before his arrest at Troy, to
work for him at Barton, for $50, per
month, and that he was TO commence the
next week. 1t was also proved that he
had spoken to the tailor at Coventry, for
some patterns which he was to take or
T. his return to Barton. 1t was also shown
that be had left his valise and clothes
with the barber at Barton, where he left
4 the cloth. Some few things were shown
by way of discrediting the testimony Of
= the barber. 1t was also in evidence thai
a on the night that respondent left Barton
> he was intoxicated his counsel claimed
that while in this condition, not knowing
f what he wanted, he started after help and
r put on one Of his customers coats, buI
that he intended to return, that Ire die
! not sell the cloth to the negro, but simply
r left it with him till his return.
The jury after being out about half ar
e hour returned with verdict Of not gull
0 ty.
+ II. G. Wilson and j. P. Sartie for the
: governments VIM. w. Grout for respon
dent.
: State VS.. John G. Wilson-Breakine
d, Jail. The grand jury indicted the re-
sPondent for escaping from the common
L Jail in Irasburgh in May last. Jobr
Leazer was indicted for escaping at the
same time. On the trial of Leazer fol
this offence the respondent was used as &
witness in behalf of the State, and since
e he was acquitted on the charge for which