170 Mich. 683 | Mich. | 1912
The respondent was tried and convicted in the recorder’s court for the city of Detroit under an information charging larceny from the person. The case is' brought here by writ of error.
The assignments of error may be grouped as follows:
(1) Because of the fact that counsel for the people was permitted to show other crimes subsequent to the one charged in the information.
(2) Because of the scope of the cross-examination of the respondent, in which counsel for the people was permitted to go into the life of the respondent, showing her associations and character.
(3) Because of the charge of the court.
We will take up these groups in the above order.
“ It is not disputed that he had that amount of money in his possession, or that he was in the neighborhood of Brush and Beacon streets, on the night he claims he was robbed. Neither is it disputed that he was robbed, and it is not disputed that he was (not) robbed by a colored woman.”
The record shows this portion of the charge of the judge to be true. The complaining witness swore to these facts, and no one contradicted him. See People v. Hawkins, 106 Mich. 479 (64 N. W. 736). It was not until the question arose as to who took his money that a dispute arose. As to that question and all disputed questions they were left to the jury; the court instructing them correctly as to the law applicable thereto.
We discover no error in the record.
The conviction is affirmed.