1. Under the thirty-fifth section of
the act of 1850, entitled "An act
to authorise the formation of rail-
road corporations, and to regulate
the same," a conductor of a train
is protected against an indictment
for assault and battery, for putting
out of the cars a passenger who re-
fuses to pay his fare, if he use no
unnecessary force; and where a
passenger has refused to pay his
fare, and the train has been stopped
for the purpose of putting him out
of the cars, the right of the con-
ductor to put him out is not taken
away by his then offering to pay
the fare. The People v. Jillson, 234
2. The relations and rights of a pas-
senger, as regards the railroad com-
pany in whose cars he travels, dis-
cussed by MULLETT, J.
3. On the trial of an indictment for
an assault and battery, it appeared
that the defendant was a conduc-
tor on a railroad, and that the act
complained of was committed in
forcibly ejecting a passenger from a
car, before he had reached the station
for which he had purchased his
ticket; one ground of defence being
that the passenger had conducted
himself in a violent and disorderly
manner, so as seriously to disquiet
the other passengers; held that it
was competent for the defendant to
prove the passenger guilty of such
misconduct during any part of his
entire passage, it being a short one,
and that it was erroneous to restrict
the evidence to the last three miles
of the passage. The People v.
Caryl.
4. It is erroneous to charge that a
conductor on a railroad has no
authority to eject a passenger from
the car for misconduct, except when
it is such as to disturb the peace
1. Form of an indictment for feloni-
ously receiving and having stolen
property, with counts charging some
of the defendants as accessories.
Wills et al. v. The People, 473
2. On the trial of an indictment for
feloniously receiving and having
stolen goods, where a witness called
by the prosecution had testified that
he called on the defendants and
found the stolen property in their
possession, and purchased it of
them for a much less sum than its
value, and had, at the time, in his
possession, a memorandum of the
goods which had been stolen, it is
competent for the prosecution, for
the purpose of showing the true
position of the witness in the trans-
action, to show by him that he had
previously received the memoran-
dum from the person from whom
the property had been stolen, and
that he also got the money with
which he bought the property from
the person from whom it had been
stolen.
ib
3. What facts and circumstances are
sufficient to justify the court in re-
fusing to discharge one of the de-
fendants, on the trial of such an
indictment, where a clear case of
guilt was made out against the other
defendant, both being claimed to
have acted in concert, stated in the
history of the case, and commented
on by MITCHELL, J.
4. Where the bulk of the stolen goods
was found, in Williamsburgh, in a
house apparently kept for storing
and concealing goods, but a portion
of the goods, used as samples, was
found at the store and place of
business of the defendants in New-
York, at which place Wills, one of
the defendants, exhibited to a wit-
ness, and offered to sell him, the
whole of the goods, and the sam-
ples, before they were exhibited to
the witness, were brought in by
Conley, another defendant, after an
absence of only fifteen minutes from.
the time he was sent by Wills to
get them; it was held, on the trial
of an indictment found in the city
of New-York, that the Court of
General Sessions were right in over-
ruling a motion to dismiss the case,
or to direct the jury to acquit the
prisoners, which motion was made
on the ground that it was not shown
that they had received or had the
goods in question, within the city
and county of New-York.
ib
5. On the trial of an indictment for
receiving stolen goods, knowing
them to be stolen, it is not compe-
tent for the defendant, for the pur-
pose of proving that when he re-
ceived the goods he had no know-
ledge of their being stolen, to prove
what the person from whom he re-
ceived the goods said as to the
manner in which such person be-
came possessed of the property. ib
6. Where a witness, called by the de-
fendants, testified that he saw in
the store of the defendants samples
of the property alleged to have
been stolen, it is not competent for
the defendants to prove by the wit-
ness what was said by one of the
defendants then present "as to
what the property was doing there."
7. Under the statute of this state, a
person may be tried and convicted
of the offence of feloniously receiv-
ing and having stolen goods, either
in the county where the prisoner
originally received the stolen pro-
perty or in any county in which he
afterwards had it.
ib
1. Form of a recognizance, taken by
a police justice, to appear and an-
swer to an indictment, in the Court
of General Sessions, and of a justi-
fication by the surety in the recog-
nizance. The People v. Bogart,
143
2. Form of a recognizance, taken by
a police justice, on a charge made
before him of grand larceny.
ib
1. Form of a record of conviction for
felony, where the defendant was
tried on an indictment found
against him jointly with another
1. In an indictment for robbery in
the first degree (2 R. S., 677,
55), the defendant was charged
with having feloniously assaulted
J. D., on, &c., at, &c., and then
and there feloniously putting him in
fear and danger of his life, and then
and there feloniously and violently
stealing, taking and carrying away
from his person and against his
will certain money of the said J.
D., to wit, current bank bills of the
value of $15, and silver coin of the
value of $3, of the goods and chat-
tels of the said J. D., against, &c.,
and it was held sufficient, without
setting forth the number and de-
nomination of the bank bills, and
the amount secured thereby and
remaining unsatisfied thereon, or
the number and description of the
pieces of silver coin, The People v
Loop,
4. The place to be searched must be
particularly designated in the
search warrant. Where a part of
the complaint was recited in the
warrant, in which it was stated that
the complainant suspected the sto-
len property was concealed in the
stable of C. P., on the east side of
the canal, in the village of White-
hall, in said county, known as the
"red barn," and then the warrant
gave direction to search the places
where said property was suspected
to be concealed, it was held insuf-
ficient, for the reason that though
the place mentioned in the com-
plaint was sufficiently designated,
the direction given in the warrant
was too general, and authorized the
search of any suspected place, in-
stead of confining the search to
the place so suspected by the com-
plainant.
5. To sustain an indictment for this
offence, against a person who had
owned a diseased cow and had
slaughtered her and sold her for
food, it is enough to prove that
the disease was known to the de-
fendant and that the nature and
tendency of the disease was such
as to taint and affect the flesh of
the entire animal so as to make it
unwholesome in any degree, al-
though the taint was imperceptible
to the senses, and although the
eating of the flesh produced no ap-
parent injury to those who ate it.
4. To enable a party to avail himself
of any irregularity in the court be-
low, it should be presented in the
first instance, in that court, either
by plea in abatement or bill of
exceptions, so as to introduce it
upon the record, and thus subject
it to review upon writ of error after
judgment.
ib
5. Where the return to a writ of error
contained only the indictment and
the clerk's minutes of the trial,
showing the impanneling of the
jury, the verdict of guilty and the
sentence of the court, without any
judgment record, it was held that
the questions could not be raised,
whether the defendant was present
at the trial, or whether he was
asked, previous to the passsing of
the sentence, if he had anything to
say why sentence should not be
pronounced against him, Thomp-
son v. The People,
208
6. Whether such objections would
have been available if the record
had been before the court, quere. ib
7. Form of a writ of error, sued out
in behalf of the people, to remove
a criminal case from the Supreme
Court to the Court of Appeals.
The People v. Thoms,
256
8. Since the adoption of the Revised
Statutes, a party who has brought
a writ of error to reverse a judg-
ment in a criminal case cannot
allege diminution and sue out a
certiorari, but the cause must be
decided upon the return to the writ
of error, which return properly in-
cludes the pleadings, the bill of
exceptions, if any, and the judg-
|