Case Name: The People vs Michael Romaine
Court: Recorder of New York City
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1823-05
Citations: 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. 369
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People vs Michael Romaine.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wheeler's Criminal Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 369–371

Head Matter:
The People vs Michael Romaine.
The defendant was charged with committing a larceny of the goods of I Walter Legget, on the 34th day of April, 1823.
In larceny of *®rtf °°/s °* contingent inSolent one of the partners, is not sufficient ¡^goods' of the partners, but should be the sole pro perty of the partner who h&s the legal .them!St m
Grand Larceny.
It appeared by the testimony, that the prosecutor had married the sister of the prisoner about three years ago, and that the prosecutor and his wife and father-in-law occupied the same house, or at least lived under the same roof, but separate ; and that Mr. Legget had employed . prisoner his brother-in-law, in his store at different times, for about two years past, and had allowed him no salary for his services.
He missed about two months since, a considerable quantity of goods and money, and applied to the police for a warrant against the prisoner ; he absconded, and in' about two wee]rs returned, was arrested, examined, and committed for trial.
Up0n examining his trunk it was found to contain a part of the linen stolen from Mr. Legget—claimed and proved tQ belong to him.
It also appeared, by the testimony of Mr. Sharp, that he was concerned in the store of Mr. Legget. He received a compensation, weekly, for his services; but was to have a share in the profits, now made, at the expiration of a certain period.
Upon this evidence, Doctor Graham and M’Ewing for the prisoner contended, that the prisoner could not be convicted of larceny of the goods of Walter Legget, when it ■appeared they were jointly owned by Messrs. Legget and ■Sharp. The Doctor went into an argument of some length to prove the position.

Opinion:
The Court were of a different opinion, the case was like that of a. merchant who entrusted his goods into the hands of a clerk, who for the time being, might have an interest in them,.yet no person doubted but they should be laid in the indictment as the property of the merchant. That the case now before them appeared by the evidence to be, that the store and contents belonged to Mr. Leg-get ; that Mr. Sharp, by the contract with Legget, was to have a share in the profits, if any were made, which, from the nature of the business, was uncertain; it was therefore, a contingent interest, and not such a one as required the goods to be laid as their property.
Doctor Graham summed up the cause to the jury, and contended that the prisoner and the prosecutor were related to each other, and lived in the same" house; that the prisoner had attended in his store for a very considerable length of time, without demanding or receiving any compensation ; and that it was probable, in consequence of the . . . . , , . . , intimate relation between the parties, the prisoner have thought himself at liberty to take the goods, and that it was probable he was ignorant that he was committing felony, although a very improper and indiscreet act; and that the prisoner's character being proved to be heretofore good, the jury ought to lean in favor of mercy, and acquit the prisoner.
Maxwell, District Attorney,
did not think it his duty to sum up on the part of the people, and, therefore, left it to the jury. The jury retired for about fifteen minutes, and returned into Court with a verdict of not guilty.