Case Name: The People vs. Nick O'Bryan
Court: Recorder of New York City
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1823-02
Citations: 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People vs. Nick O’Bryan.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wheeler's Criminal Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
The People vs. Nick O’Bryan.
The circumclse'may^e so strong as to viction-
Petit Larceny.
Nick O’Bryan was put to the bar, charged with committing a petit larceny of a watch, the property of Walter Barmore, on the 27th day of January, 1823.
'-It appeared, by the testimony of William M’Menomy, his mother, and James M’Menomy, his brother, that the prisoner came to Mrs. M’Menomy’s house on the 28th day of January, and offered the watch for sale ; it was purchased by William M’Menomy for a small sum.
M’Menomy was arrested with the watch in his possession, and taken to the police office, and finally committed. At the time he was arrested, and after, he prevaricated and told different, and contradictory stories. He first said he found it, and afterwards declared he had purchased it of a sailor ; but at last asserted he had bought it of Nick O’Bryan. He excused himself for thus prevaricating, by saying he .was intimidated, and was afraid of bringing himself into trouble by telling the truth in the first instance.
Maxwell, District Attorney;
called a great number of respectable witnesses, who testified he sustained a good character.
M’Ewing, counsel for the prisoner,
contended that the evidence against his client was of such* a suspicious kind, that he thought no jury would feel themselves authorized to convict upon it: that it was impossible to place any reliance upon the testimony of a witness who had shown himself unworthy of belief, by the many and different stories he had told concerning the manner of his reception - , , ° * of the watch. i
Maxwell replied that it was true William M’Menomy ^a(l) uPon being arrested by the police officers, and after watch was found upon him, told different and contradictory stories in relation to it; but that he had shown the court and jury, by respectable witnesses, that the prisoner came to Mrs. M’Menomy’s house on the 28th of January, with the watch described in the indictment, and that Mrs. M’Menomy and her son believe, from the conversation between the prisoner and William M’Menomy, that the prisoner sold William the watch: that they saw them bargaining for it; and that the circumstances of the case were too strong to be doubted, independent of the testimony of William M’Menomy.

Opinion:
The Court observed the evidence was strong, and perhaps conclusive. It would therefore lay upon the prisoner to give a fair and satisfactory account to the court and jury how it came into his possession. The court adverted to the circumstances of the case, and observed that they might be of that nature to induce a conviction by themselves—that they were strong in this case. The prisoner was seen at Mrs. M'Menomy's house in a treaty with her son William for the watch, and William was after-wards seen in possession of it. It was true he prevaricated when arrested; but it is not improbable that fear might have operated upon, and misled him.
The Court left it to the jury to say, from the evidence of William M'Menomy, and the circumstances of the case, whether the prisoner was guilty, or not guilty.
The jury found him not guilty.