101 N.Y.S. 597 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1906
The defendant was convicted of larceny of the sum of $1,800, the property of one Ensign or one Darrah, the proceeds of a note 'given
The only question of fact, therefore, was whether or not the defendant received the money from H orden ; for the defendant does not allege that he ever returned the money to Ensign from whom, he received the note, or accounted for it to any one else. The defendant upon this appeal appears mainly to rest his case upon the claim that this verdict of the jury was not sustained by the evidence, and for that reason the court should order a new trial. We have examined this evidence and are at a loss to see how such a claim could be made, or how the jury could have come to any conclusion except one which would result in the conviction of the defendant.
Horden testified that he arrived in New York with the very same bills that he had received from Atwater who discounted the note less $75 that he had paid to a broker, and $20 that he had paid to another man and his expenses of the trip; that he met the defendant at the Grand Union Hotel; that he figured out the expenses and commissions that were paid and handed the balance of the money, about $1,800, to the defendant; that the defendant then
In the face oí this testimony it is quite apparent that the defendant’s denial of haying received this money is substantially uncorroborated and could not have justified the court in advising.the jury to acquit the defendant or in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. The court submitted the case to the jury by a perfectly fair charge to which no' exception was taken, no request to charge being submitted to the court. There are questions as to ruling on evidence which we have considered but find no error.
A consideration of the whole case has. satisfied ns that the defóndant had a fair trial; that all of his rights were fully protected by the court and a consideration of the whole testimony has satisfied us that the defendant.is guilty.
It follows that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
Patterson, McLaughlin, Laughlin and Clarke, JJ., concurred.
Judgment affirmed.