The People vs. Mary Smith.
Grand Larceny.
The prisoner was put to the bar, charged Vith larceny, for stealing two pieces of Plush, two Chinchilli Hats, &c., altogether a'mounting to twenty-six dollars and sixty-seven cents, from the store of Mrs. Platt, No. 439 Pearl street.
It appeared by the testimony of Mrs. Platt, that she missed the articles in December last, and that by the vigilance of the police officers the prisoner was arrested and committed to Bridewell, to answer for the felony.
Messrs. Conklin and Homan, upon information received by them, went to her house, and upon searching it, found some of the articles mentioned in the indictment in the be?!, between the bed-ticking and the covering of the bed; and some others had been sold by her at different places, which they obtained.
It was also proved that the prisoner told the officers she had brought the articles with her some eight or ten years ago from England,
It was further proved that the prisoner kept the house at "the corner of Banker and Market streets, and that it was a harbour for thieves, and a repository for stolen articles.
*132
M’Ewen, counsel for the prisoner
^contended that it by the evidence, the prisoner was exceedingly old and infirm; that it was proved she was not in the habit of going’out; indeed her infirmity was such as to her going from her house in Banker street, to the house of the prosecutor, in Pearl Street. That presumptive evidence was to be received with caution.. But in the present case, the presumption against the prisoner had been in some measure removed by the evidence of her infirmity. That it was true the articles had been fgund in the possession of the prisoner, and that her answer to the officer was unsatisfactory. But that the rule in relation to the possession of stolen goods did not apply, when a presumption was raised, as in this case, in favor of the prisoner.
Maxwell, District Attorney,
replied that he thought the evidence entirely satisfactory. That it was proved the articles were found concealed in the bed of the prisoner; that she first denied they were there, and after they were discovered, said she had brought them from England 8 or ten years ago: that it was proved she kept a bad house, the common resort of people of suspicious character ; that her. infirmity was not satisfactorily proved: and that if she did actually purchase the articles, it might be shown, to the satisfaction of the Court. Nor had any evidence nf her good character been offered to the Court, &c.
His Honor the Recorder, observed to the Jury.—11 This “ is a case depending entirety upon circumstantial or pre- “ sumptive evidence. It is a general rule that this species “ of evidence shall be received with caution, neverthe- “ less, circumstances are often- so strong as to amount “ to satisfactory proof.*- It appears by the testimony now *133ore the Court, that the prisoner lives in Banker, “ near Market-Street, and that she keeps a house of “ suspicious character. Upon the officers’ going into her “ house to search for stolen goods, she at first denied hav“ingany; but after they were found, prevaricated: “ should it be forgotten they were found secreted between “ the covering and the bed, she saying she brought them “with her from England nine or ten years ago. The arti“cles have been identified by Mrs. Plate as belonging to “her. There can be no doubt the articles were, stolen from “ Mrs. Platt, as she has testified, but whether stolen by the “ prisoner or not, is a proper subject for you now to inves- “ tigate. The defence set up for the prisoner that she is “ old and infirm, and not able to walk from her house to 5ithe store of Mrs. Platt,has not been satisfactorily sustained. “ And her assertion when the articles were discovered that “ she brought them from England, is absurd, and is desti- “ tute of proof. She has neglected to show to the Court “ and jury, any evidence of good character. Although the “ charge is a very important one, and involving the repu- “ tation and liberty of the prisoner, yet she has not thought “ proper to offer any evidence to the jury that she is a wo- “ man of good character. Upon the whole, you, gentle“men of the jury, are to decide, from all the circumstances “of the case, whether the prisoner is guilty, as charged in “ the indictment, or not guilty.”
The jury retired, and in a few minutes found the prisoner guilty.