State v. MorganState v. Morgan
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Fullerton
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Fullerton, C. J.— The appellant and one Corena Wright werе jointly informed against by the prosecuting *227attornеy of Snohomish county for the crime of robbery. The information, omitting the formal parts, was as follоws :
“Comes now H. D. Cooley, county and prosecuting attorney, in and for Snohomish county, state of Wаshington, and by this, his information accuses Corena Wright аnd Harry Morgan of the crime of larceny from the person, committed as follows, towit: That the sаid Corena Wright and Harry Morgan, at the city of Everеtt in the county of Snohomish and state of Washington, on the 4th day of March, 1902, did unlawfully and feloniously, but without violеnce or putting in fear, take, steal, and carry away from the person of one Frank Meеks, then and there being, one gold filled hunting case Elgin watch of the value of $20 and one gold hand ring of thе value of $5.00, all of the value of $25 in lawful money of the United States; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Washington.”
A demurrer to the information was interposed by the defendants on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime. The demurrеr was overruled, whereupon the respondent entered a plea of not guilty, and demandеd and was granted a separate trial. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty as charged in the information, and he appeals from the judgment and sеntence pronounced thereon.
It will he noticed that the information contains no allеgation as to the ownership of the property alleged to have been taken from the person of Meeks, and the sole question presented by the record is, does this omission rendеr the information insufficient? In State v. Dengel, 24 Wash. 49 (63 Pac. 1104), an information for robbery by violence and putting in fear which omitted to аllege ownership of the property taken was held not to state a *228crime. It is urged, howevеr, that there is a distinction between that easе and the case at bar, in that the information in that case does not contain the word “steаl” in its charging part, while the present one does contain such word. But it seems to us that this distinction is not material. The words “did feloniously steal and take,” аre no more effective to charge оwnership of property than are the words “did fеloniously take.” The case cited is squarely in рoint, and, being so, is controlling.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the information.
Dunbar, Mount and Anders, J.T., concur.