The Northeastern Reporter Volume 134 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1922 Excerpt: ...The sons took the estate charged with the accomplishment of that object. The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded to the Court of Appeals, with instructions to enter a decree in accordance with this view. Judgment reversed. MARSHALL, C. J., and HOUGH, WANAMAKER, ROBINSON, JONES, and MATTHIAS, JJ., concur. BREAKER v. STATE. (No. 16862.) (Supreme Court of Ohio. Dec. 20, 1921.) (Svllabtu ty Editorial Staff.) 1. Criminal law (c)=40--Evidence owner did not desire to prosecute is incompetent. In a prosecution for larceny of an automobile, evidence offered by defendant that the owner of the car did not desire to prosecute the defendant because he did not consider defendant intended to steal it is incompetent, since a statutory crime is a public and not a private wrong, and the feelings of the owner of the stolen property is a matter of indifference to the state. 2. Criminal law g=l 134(2), 1163(4)--Instruction, literally Incorrect, not presumed to be prejudicial; charge must be considered in connection with evidence. Error prejudicial to accused is not presumed from an instruction literally incorrect, but such charge must be considered in connection with the evidence to which it reasonably relates. 3. Criminal law g=l 122(3)--Record, not showing evidence, does not show erroneous charge was prejudicial. An errpneous statement of the law, relating to the character of the taking and use of an alleged stolen automobile, is not shown to be prejudicial to accused, where the record, though it disclosed the entire charge of the court, did not disclose the entire evidence touching the taking and using of the car. 4. Criminal law 3=II79--Judgments of lower and Intermediate courts not reversed unless prejudice clearly appears.. The presumption of the legality.