Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-10-09
Rutia,,sl conn,y court.
Hon. HoYF II. WHEELER, Chief Judge.
* ISAAC C.WHEAfoN, Assistant
: %. HEEL HoLrIsTER, Judges.
sa a...
sEPTENlR.ER TERM. 1878.

e. ISAAC ~. w HtA ION. : sG1SolobtlIR
. q. HIKL HoLrisTKR, Judges.
, THURSDAY, 0ct0Jer 2a. --Theentire day
was spent in the arguments of counsel,
in the order indicated in our report of
yesterday. w c. Dunton closed the
argument at about eight O'Clock in the
evening, when the presiding Judge de-
Iivered the charge of the Court, and the
jury retired. We give an PIX, =.
49,. =. ABSTRACT OF THE CHARGE.
In reference to the question made by
the. counsel, as to whether the offence
, charged against the respondent under
the circumstances of this case is larceny,
the evidence tends to show that Mr..
Dyer left. his own trunk locked, of
which he kept the key, in the custody
and keeping of the respondent. Now, if
. the respondent broke open the trunk
and took out the bonds and converted
them to his own use, it is larceny. The
statute of this State does not enlarge the
common law definition of larceny. In
the case that was handed me by the
counsel it is held that If a bailee breaks
bulk and takes and carries away the
goods with an intent TO steal them, that
the bailnent is determined and the steal
ing Of the goods is larceny, IF the bonds
had been left With the prisoner, and not
The trunk, it would be a great question
whether becon!d he indicted foF any Of
fence except elnbezzlement, for taking
and converting them Now, gentlemen
Of the jury, this case presents important
questions, and we can help you but lit
tie. The case has been ably argued and
presented with great eIaborateness of de-
tail. There. seems to be no question that
Mr. Dyer was the owner of the five $1,000
bonds described in the indictment, which
he put in a trunk Of his own, of which
he kept the key himself, and put the
same in the safe of the respondent, and
that they were by some person taken out
of the trunk and carried away with a fe-
lonious intent--that is, with an intent to
steal them; this was larceny in the per-
son who took and carried away these
bonds. The definition of larceny is the
taking and carrying away the goods of
another with an intent of stealing them
and in this case there is no doubt that
some one committed the crime of Iarce-
ny, and the question is, did the respond
ent do it The prosecution relics on
circumstantial evidence entirely, and not
upon the evidence of any witnesses who
saw the act committed but if circum-
stantial evidence shows guilt suftici-
emily strong to convict, the respondent
may he convicted on that evidence as
well as he could on direct evidence of
the crime itself. It is a conceded fact
that on the Goth of February, 1872, these
bonds and trunk were in the respond
ent's safe. There were two sets of KEYS
To the safe, and but two, and the prose
cutiOn claims that the respondent had
the possession and custody of both sets
one in the secretary at the house and the
other in his pants pocket That after
the fire the safe was found whole and
unbroken, and the bonds and trunk hay
ing been taken out by some one who had
the keys; and it is not made a question
that the person who took ont these
bonds must have had one or the
other of these sets of keys The prose-
cution claims that Mr.. Adams had these
keys to so late time before the discov-
cry of the crime that no one else could
have committed this crime. They say
the key of the outer door of the safe
was in his possession up to a very short
time before the fire alarm, and they also
claim that he had the key to the inner
door all the while, so that no one but he
could have taken out these bonds. The
crime consists in taking the bonds out of
the trunk, and taking them away with
an intention of stealing them. The pros
ecution upon this point claims that the
respondent must have had these keys
until after his son Mark came home that
night, because his mother was up at that
time, therefore it is material that you
fix that time, also the time when the fire
was discovered : in connection with the
condition and progress of the fire, that
you may judge whether ii were possible
for any person to get possession of the
keys and commit the offense. Fix in
your own minds what time this crime
must have been committed, then look
back and say how long before that the
respondent is shown to have had the
outer safe key, and then say whether
any other person than Adams could have
taken these bonds out of the safe. The
time when Mark got homeis material,
and you may consider all the evidence
on that point. There is some evidence
tending to show that he told different
story as othat time than he has sworn
to here. What he may have said about it
at another time is no evidence of the fact.
but may be considered in view of his
testimony in deciding what credit you
viii give the witness. A truthful wit
ness tells the truth at all times. The
important fact on this part of the case
is to decide how late the respondent had
that key, for if the respondent had it
SO near the time that these bonds were
taken that no one else could have taken
them, then he must have committed
this crime. 1t appears that the inner
vault was also whole, and if this trunk
was in there the person who took it
must have had both keys.
The prosecution also claims that the
conduct of Mr.. Adams at the store at
the time of the fire was such as to indi-
cate that he had the keys all the time,
and they rely upon his having said
nothing about the loss of his pants that
night as evidence that such was not the
fact. The respondent has given his ac-
count of this affair, and you must con-
slider his testimony in connection with
the other evidence in the case, and the
and excitement of that |