State v. Lindley

Citations

• 13 S.D. 248
• 83 N.W. 257
• 1900 S.D. LEXIS 139

Syllabus

<p>1. Prosecuting witness had purchased an interest in defendant’s store, and had deposited with him money to be applied on the price when an invoice was taken. On the morning of the second day thereafter defendant called a neighboring blacksmith into his store, and, pointing to some tools on the floor before his safe, asked if they did not belong to him, and then stated that the safe had been blown open in tbe night, and money belonging to himself and prosecuting witness taken. On the evening before hammering was heard in the store at 7:30, and defendant was seen coming from the blacksmith shop at 9 o’clock, and from a drug- store at 11 o’clock. I-Ie stated to a customer the day before that he would have to go out to get change, as the combination on his safe was out of'order, and during that day he appeared nervous. The safe appeared to have been shattered by an explosive, and showed marks of tools. Held, that the evidence did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of breaking open his own safe and stealing-the money.</p> <p>2. Where defendant sold an interest in his store to prosecuting witness, and received a portion of the money in good faith, which was not to be applied on the purchase money until an invoice was taken, the fact that he thereafter contrived to defraud prosecutor of such money by pretending that it it had been stolen from him, did not render him liable to prosecution for larceny thereof.</p> <p>•3. Where a defendant received money from a prospective purchaser of his personal properly, and thereafter formed a design to defraud the purchaser of the money by pretending that it had been stolen, and there was no evidence to show that defendant entertained such design when he received the money, it was error to instruct that if he had received the money with such fraudulent intent the jury should find him guilty of larceny.</p>