Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-16
COURT DECISIONS.
DiGESTED b, w. q. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virginian-Pilot)
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest 10
Our People.

HENDERSON v. COMMONWEALTH.
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.
January %, 1900.
a VERDICT IN THE CRIMINAL
CASE IS SUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN
IL IT'S MEANING Is CLEAR
WHEN READ IN CONNECTION
WITH THE INDICTMENT.
IN a TRIAL FOR HOUSEBREAK-
ING THE POSSESSION OF THE
GOODS WHICH WE'RE IN THE
HOUSE IS a MATERIAL CIRCUM-
STANCE TO BE CONSIDERED IN
CONNECTION WITH OTHER CIR
CUMSTANCES.
Henderson was convicted of house
breaking and appealed.
The court says:
The contention is that the possession
or goods recently stolen is not evidence
OF house breaking and that the uues-
tion objected to could not be asked 10
prove the burglary: that, before the
commonwealth could be pcrmitted to
rely apon the prisoners possession OF
money as q fact to establish the burg
larry by him. she must prove that the
money found in his possession was
stolen from the house burglarized or
broken into, as charged in the indict-
ment.
The general rule of the common law
with regard TO the evidence in cases of
larceny, that the possession Of goods re-
Gently stolen is prima facie evidence
on quit and throws upon the accused
the burden of accounting for that pos
session. has never been-hela- by-this
court TO apply with the same effect in
cases OF burglary. and the decided
weight OF authority is that il does not
sun. where goods have been obtained
ny means of burglary or housebrcak-
ing, the fact Of such possession is n
most material circumstance to be con-
Siuereu by the jury in connection with
othcr inculpatory circumstances
There must be some evidence of guilt
conducted besides the bare possession
OF Inc stolen property before the pre-
sumption of burglary or house break
ing Is superadded to that OF larceny.
\ IN the case at bar, several strong in
culpatory circumstances are establish
eu, connecting the prisoner with the
crime charged, ana his admitted pos
session of part of the stolen money was
IL further circumstance, proper to be
considered by the jury in connection
win the other evidence bearing upon
The question or guilt
We are further of opinion That Tho
court did not err in refusing to nrrcst
inc Judgment as set forth i'm the 5th
Dill OF exceptions. IL is contended. as
ground for this motion, that the YER
uict les not responsive to the Indictment:
that the prisoner is charged in the in
dictment with breaking and entering
n certain store house. the property OF
4. F. Splitter and G.. w. Hess. partners
DUNG business under the firm name of
Splitter q Hess, with the intent to
commit larceny. whereas the verdict
finds the prisoner guilty of breaking
aud entering the store house of Splitter
d Hess. with intent, &c.
The contention lis that the parties arc
not the same; that the verdict should
have set forth the individual names of
the partners composing the firm OF
Splitter & Hess as done I'm the indict-
ment. This contention is without
merit. a verdict of jury in Il crimi-
nal case must always be read In CON
ncction with the Indictment; and If II
be certain. upon reading them together,
what is the meaning OF the verdict, ii
is sufficiently certain
When the verdict i'm the case al bar
is read In connection with the indict-
mcnt there Is no difficulty in seeing
that the jury found the prisoner guilty
OF breaking and entering the same
house that the Indictment charges him
with having broken and entered.
Affirmed -----