Majority
p. 253GENERAL SESSIONS. NEW YORK, DECEMBER, 1823. The People vs. Beau Jackson, Henry Poster, Richard Brown, and Joseph Robin . Present—Honourable Richard Riker, Recorder.
Headnote
Grand Larceny.On an indictment for larceny of the goods óf a firm, evidence may be given of the Christian name of one of the firm, after the counsel for the prisoner has summed up; and th^ to forward the end of public justice.
Maxwell, District Attorney, Counsel for The People.
Price, Counsel for the Prisoner.
It appeared by the testimony of witnesses that on the night of the 16th of November, 1823, the store of Messrs. Andrew Martine & Hall, No. 147 Chathany-street, was broken open, and a quantity of merchandize - was taken therefrom. Three days afterwards part of the goods aforesaid were taken by Mr. Hays from 160 Duan e-street, arid another part from the possession of Seth Campbell, at the corner of Hester and Christie-streets, where it was proved they had been left: the former bundle by Jackson and Robin, and the latter by Brown and Foster. They were all apprehended"8 by Mr. Graves, a watchman, at No. 85 Christie-street, who found upon them other property subsequently identified.
p. 254
Mr. Price, their counsel, took an exception to the indictment- It charged the felony to have been committed by feloniously taking and carrying away the goods of “ Andrew Martine and Edward Hall.” The testimony having been received, Mr. Price summed up the evidence and contended that in point of fact- the- name “ Andrew'** had never been given in proof, and that it was too late to supply it now.[1] That it must. be proved as laid; for if proved, for example, to be the property of “ William” Mar-tine, it could not sustain a verdict of guilty; and here there was a hiatus in the chain of testimony which it was too late to supply.
Maxwell, District Attorney, replied that Mr. Price was certainly mistaken ; that he had proved the firm as laid-in the-indictment; but if he had omitted to ask the Christian name of Mr. Martine, the omission could be ¡supplied at any time, even after the counsel had summed up.
The court were of the same opinion.
The jury requested to be informed by a witness relative to the first or Christian name of Mr. Martine. Mr. Price contended, toties viribus, that the admission of testimony for that purpose.in this stage of the case, after the cause .had been summed up, was not legal.
The objection was overruled by the court, and the question asked.
The prisoners were found guilty.