People v. Strauss

Defendants herein were both convicted of the offense of having in their possession and selling counterfeit trade-marks, in violation of subdivision four of section 364 of the Penal Code. Upon conviction each defendant was sentenced to 10 days in the city prison and to pay a fine of $500. Section 364 of the Penal Code provides:

“A person who knowingly * * * (4) has in his possession a counterfeit trade mark, knowing it to be counterfeit, * * * (7) is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

“A mark to indicate the maker, owner or seller o£ an article of merchandise, and includes, among other things, any name of a person, or corporation, or any letter, word, device, emblem, figure, seal, stamp, diagram, brand, wrapper, ticket, stopper, label, or other mark, lawfully adopted by him, and usually affixed to an article of merchandise, to denote that the same was imported, manufactured, produced, sold, compounded, bottled, packed, or otherwise prepared by him; and also a signature or mark, commonly used or commonly placed,, by a painter, sculptor, or other artist, upon a painting, drawing, engraving, statue, or other work of art, to indicate that the same was designed or executed by him.”

Section 368 provides that:

“An imitation of a ‘trade-mark’ is that which so far resembles a genuine trade-mark as to be likely to induce the belief that it is genuine, whether by the use of words or letters, similar in appearance or in sound, or by any sign, device or other means whatsoever.”

It appeared that the defendants were, in the year 1901, copartners carrying on business under the firm name of William E. Strauss & Co., at No. 27 Warren street, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, claiming to be dealers in druggists’ supplies. It was testified to by Sigmund Schulhafer that some time in the year 1901 defendants-, in company with each other, called upon him at No. 2331 Third avenue, in the city of New York, where he was then engaged in carrying on the business of wholesale liquor dealer. The defendants informed him that they could procure labels and caps so close in imitation to the labels and caps used upon the bottles of Hunter Whisky that the difference could scarcely be detected. Schulhafer, after such conversation, ordered of the defendants 10,000 caps, and in response to -a telephone message received several days later he sent his truckman to the defendants’ place of business for the caps in question. The truckman returned with the case, it was opened in his presence and Schulhafer’s, and was found to contain the caps which he had ordered. The purchase price of the caps was $500. Upon attempting to use them, however, they proved to be too small, many of them split in the attempt to place them upon bottles, and subsequently a compromise was made between the defendant Haas and Schulhafer whereby he only paid $150 for this case of caps. In the spring of 1902 Haas came to Schulbafer’s place of business and told him that his partner, Strauss, was going to Europe, and that if he wanted any more caps they could get them, and that these caps would be perfect. Élaas also told bim that he could get Hunter labels, and thereupon Schulhafer gave him an order for 5,000 labels and for more caps. Some months later he was called on the telephone by the defendant Strauss, whose voice he recognized, and was informed by him that the goods had arrived. Thereupon Schulhafer sent his clerk, Miller, for the labels. He returned with a package which was opened in the presence of the clerk and Schulhafer, and it was found to contain 10,000 Hunter labels. In the spring of 1903 Schulhafer gave another order to the defendants for Hunter labels, and in the early part of August the defendant Haas informed him that they were ready, and that he would send them up to him. Thereafter Monroe Schulhafer, nephew of the liquor dealer, who was then in the employ of the defendants, took the package to Schulhafer’s place of business, where it was

It is said, however, that this conviction cannot be sustained, for the reason that Schulhafer was an accomplice of the defendants in this violation of law, and that the people failed to -corroborate his testimony with such certainty as the law requires. We assume, for the purposes of this discussion, that Schulhafer was an accomplice. The rule with respect to the corroboration of accomplices in cases of this character is found in section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It reads:

“A conviction cannot he had upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.”

Under this statute it is claimed by the defendants that the corroboration must extend to every material fact essential to constitute the crime, and that in this the people have failed. This is undoubtedly the true rule where, by the provisions of the statute, corroboration of every material fact is required. Such a rule applies in cases of rape. People v. Page, 162 N. Y. 272 , 56 N. E. 750 . Under the statute which we have quoted, and which is applicable to this case, the rule requiring corroboration does not go to this extent. It was said by Judge Martin, writing for the court in People v. O’Farrell, 175 N. Y. 323 , 67 N. E. 588 , after considering the case to which we have called attention and others:

“It is true those cases arose under a different statute, which provided that no conviction could be had upon the testimony of the person injured, unsupported by other evidence, while the statute under consideration provides that a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless he be corroborated by such other evidence as tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. Although, under those statutes, the rule is different as to the amount of corroboration required, still in either case the corroboration must be of a character and quality which tends to prove the defendant’s guilt by connecting him with the crime. If there is evidence fairly tending to show such connection, so that the conviction will not rest entirely upon the evidence of the accomplice, then the question whether the evidence is sufficient corroboration to induce the jury to find against the defendant is for it to determine.”

Under this rule it is evident that the testimony is abundant to corroborate Schulhafer. Neither his truckman, his clerk, nor his nephew were participants in the commission of this offense, and their testimony is sufficient in fairly tending to prove the defendants’ guilt by connecting them with the crime. Michael Miller, who was employed in 1901, by Schulhafer, testified that just before the holidays of that year he procured, by direction of Schulhafer, of the defendant Strauss, at their

It is further claimed'that error was committed in receiving in evidence conversations had with one defendant in the absence of the other. The proof is entirely sufficient to show that the defendants in what they did were acting in concert, and, this fact being established, declarations of one were admissible against the other. Both were shown to be active participants in putting up and handling the counterfeit labels and caps for purposes of delivery to the witness Schulhafer, and, the common purpose to commit the offense being established, the declarations of each were admissible in evidence, whether present or absent. This is the rule which obtains where the person charged procures and instigates another to commit a crime; in such case the' acts of each are admissible against the other. People v. Peckins, 153 N. Y. 576 , 47 N. E. 883 . In the present case there is 110 element of procuring another to commit an offense; consequently neither the doctrine of agency or of partnership applies; here both were principals in the particular transaction. The act was a misdemeanor, and, being a misdemeanor, they were properly tried together, and the declarations of each were admissible in evidence and against the other.

No other questions appear which require consideration at our hands.

It follows that the judgment of conviction was right, and it should therefore be affirmed. All concur.