BURNS V. STATE 145 Wisc. 373, 128 N.W. 987 (1911) CASE BRIEF

BURNS V. STATE

145 Wisc. 373, 128 N.W. 987 (1911)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Burns (D) appealed a judgment, which, upon a jury verdict, acquitted him of the offense of larceny, but convicted him of the statute offense of larceny as bailee.

FACTS: Adamsky was somewhat insane and he had $602.75 in money on his person. He was suffering from a delusion that someone was trying to get his money. He went about in his half-crazed condition for some three days when he brought up at Corliss on a railroad train which came in from the south. As the train drew in to the station he jumped out of the car window and fled. Several parties chased after him and before a tower he made a motion as if taking something from his coat pocket and throwing it away. Upon arriving at the tower he drew his revolver on the tower man, but without discharging it put it up and fled toward Milwaukee on the Chicago & Northwestern track. They saw Adamsky lay something down on the track, which proved to be a roll of money. A man named Kasdorf possessed himself of the roll and they delayed further pursuit for a moment while he partially counted the money. They again took off after Adamsky who they had concluded was insane. D, a constable, and others who had pursued the fleeing man from Corliss, came up, whereupon Kasdorf handed the package to D in the condition it was in when he stopped counting. D put the roll in his pocket. He then took Adamsky in charge and turned him over to the sheriff. He did not give the sheriff the money. The sheriff got word that there was a good deal of money and he visited D. D delivered to the sheriff $200, obtaining it from the barn, as all Adamsky's money which had come to his possession. D claimed that he counted the money upon reaching home after delivering Adamsky. The bills were actually in a glass milk jar in a manger and covered with hay. D claimed this was to prevent the bills being carried off or injured by rats or mice. Adamsky's guardian demanded possession of the balance of the money. D denied having any more. D was indicted for larceny and larceny by a bailee. D was convicted of the latter charge and appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner