Brown

People v. Brown

Good Law
54 Cal. 243
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1880No. 10,467California522 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Departmentsharpstein, J.

The defendant moved for a continuance, on the. ground of the absence of a material witness, by whom he (defendant) stated in his affidavit that he expected to prove that Ared Howe, said absent witness, “ was in company with the prosecuting witness, Myron B. Gesford, on the .night of May 9th, 1879, in the City and.County of San Francisco, and that the said Myron B. Gesford did not on that night aforesaid have in his possession and with him any money whatever; that the said Myron B. Gesford so told the said witness, Ared Howe, on that night,” etc.

The defendant was indicted for stealing money and gold-dust from the person of the prosecuting witness on that night. Proof that he had no money on that night was of the utmost importance to the defendant. The District Attorney admitted that the prosecuting witness told the absent witness Howe, on the night in which the larceny was said to have been committed, and a few minutes before he met the defendant, that he, the prosecuting witness, had not in his possession and with him any money whatever. To that admission the defendant objected, on the ground that it was not sufficient to admit that the prosecuting witness.said that he did not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.