Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

tutes.

fear, delivers the same to the one the purpose of ascertaining from making the demand. Rex v. Ed- the doctor himself whether the wards, 6 Car. & P. 521, 1 Moody & statements made by the wife of the R. 257.

accused were true; that he suspectThese cases are cited and com- ed that she had not fully disclosed mented upon with approval in 1 all that had taken place between Wharton's Criminal Law, 10th ed. her and the doctor; and that the 749, and 2 Russell on Crimes, 112. showing of this condition of mind

In the case of Harris v. State, would tend to prove that his motive 32 Tex. Crim. Rep. 279, 22 S. W. was not robbery. 1037, the facts shown were that a Ordinarily, it is not reversible policeman accosted two women re- error for the court to limit the exturning from work after dark, and tent and scope of the examination at the point of his pistol placed of witnesses touching remote details them under arrest; they protested of facts and circumstances leading that they had done nothing; the po- up to the commission of the offense, , liceman then offered to release them where the facts sought amount to if they would pay him money. One nothing more than uncertain or conof the women paid him $1, all of jectural explanations of the motives the money she had; the other wom- of the accused. 10 R. C. L. 926. an had no money. Both were then The taking of something of value compelled to go, at the point of the from another, by means of force or pistol, to a lonely spot, where he fear of injury, is ravished one of the women. In the gist of the of- --what constipassing along the road and paths fense of robbery; to this place they met several per- whether the motives leading up to sons, but through fear of personal the assault grew out of avarice, reviolence neither of the women made venge, or curiosity is immaterial. any outcry. Held, that the force None of these motives would justify and fear shown was sufficient to robbery, or change the degree of the support a charge of robbery as well offense, or operate to mitigate the as one of rape.

punishment therefor. In homicide We have been unable to find any cases the state of mind, or the morecent case involving facts similar tives of the accused, leading up to to those here related, but on the au- the assault, are often material as exthority of the cases cited, and giving planatory of the question of malice a reasonable application to the ele- or premeditation, but we can see no ments of the crime, we see no rea- reason why any motive not explanason why a short separation of the tory of a design to rob would have

accused and the per- any bearing on a robbery case. Robbery-compelling act by son robbed, who If the doctor made a felonious

was still laboring assault upon the wife of the accused, under apprehension and fear of per- as accused claims he did, such sonal violence, should make the case conduct was indeed reprehensible. any different from one where there Even so, that would not justify the was no such separation.

injured husband in collecting unThe accused further insists that liquidated damages at the point of his rights were prejudiced by the a pistol to compencourt's refusal to permit him to sate him for such -forcible collecprove in greater detail that for felonious assault. nineteen days and nights before the Many courts have held that the takcommission of the offense charged ing and retention of the property of he was in a worried and disturbed another for the purpose of paying state of mind, culminating in the or securing the payment of a debt assault upon the doctor, which the would not necessarily constitute laraccused claims was made not for the ceny or robbery. This is argued purpose of robbing him, but for pro and con in People v. Smith, 5

another.

tion of claim.

(- Okla. Crim. Rep. -, 212 Pac. 612.) Park. Crim. Rep. 490; Com. v. Steb- for the injury, suspected or real, to bins, 8 Gray, 492. We refuse, how- the latter's wife; early in the conever, to extend this somewhat moot- troversy the cupidity of the accused ed doctrine so as to cover cases became apparent. But “the jinwhere the taking of the property is gling of the guinea helps the hurt for the purpose of forcibly collect that honor feels.” The offer to pay, ing uncertain unliquidated damages or the forced agreement to pay, for an alleged criminal assault. To money to right this real or fancied hold otherwise would amount to an wrong, had a very soothing effect invitation to those aggrieved by the on the worried mind of the accused. criminal acts of others to assume We think that all the physical the functions of judge, jury, and facts shown, and the circumstances sheriff to violently and forcibly surrounding them, justified the jury compensate themselves for the in- in finding that the doctor surrenjury or assumed injury inflicted, to dered at least a portion of this propany extent deemed adequate by the erty under fear of aggrieved person alone, and that

imminent violence, Evidence-suffisuch violence would amount to no and that the charge more than a mere trespass or simple of robbery in the first degree was assault.

supported by the evidence. By his own admissions, the ac

The judgment of the trial court is cused by deception arranged for

therefore affirmed. this interview with the doctor, and the doctor at the point of a pistol Matson, P. J., and Doyle, J., conagreed to compensate the accused

cur.

ANNOTATION.

Robbery or assault to commit robbery as affected by intent to collect debt or

claim.

This annotation supplements one of the instruction to which the deon the same question in 13 A.L.R. 151. fendant was held entitled in State

The accepted doctrine that a charge v. Brown (1891) 104 Mo. 365, 16 S. of robbery or assault for robbery will W. 406, set out in 13 A.L.R. 153, should fail where the intent of the defend- have been given. ant was to collect a debt (see 13 But the reported case (TIPTON V. A.L.R. 151) is sustained by the later STATE, ante, 1074) refuses to extend decision of State v. Culpepper (1922) the rule that the forcible taking and 293 Mo. 249, 238 S. W. 801. In that retention of property of another for case, where the defendant, who the purpose of paying a debt might claimed the prosecuting witness owed not be deemed robbery, to a case him money which he could not collect, where the forcible taking is for the induced the witness, who denied that purpose of collecting uncertain unhe owed the debt, to come into his liquidated damages as compensation (the defendant's) house, and there, by for an alleged felonious assault on the threats of violence, which the witness taker's wife, holding that in such case believed and which the defendant had the forcible taking may constitute the means of carrying out, compelled robbery. The court points out that the witness to write a check for the any other holding would amount to amount claimed, the court held that, an invitation to one aggrieved by the if the witness owed the defendant criminal acts of another to assume money, or if the defendant believed the functions of judg2, jury, and he owed him, the defendant was not sheriff, in order to be compensated guilty of robbery, since the animus for the injury or assumed injury to furandi was wanting, and an instruc. any extent which he himself deems tion substantially following the form adequate.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Workmen's compensation killing of employee after working hours

right to compensation. 1. The killing of a strike breaker in a bunk house on mining property by the throwing of a bomb by a striker may be found to be during hours of employment within the Workmen's Compensation Act, although it was during the night after the day's work had ceased, if it was necessary to house him in the bunk house to keep him employed.

[See note on this question beginning on page 1085.] - conclusiveness of finding.

of employment, if there is evidence to 2. The court is bound by a finding support it. of the workmen's compensation board [See 28 R. C. L. 828; 3 R. C. L. that an injury occurred during hours Supp. 1600; 4 R. C. L. Supp. 1872.]

APPEAL by insurer from an order of the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County (Kline, J.) affirming an award of the Compensation Board in favor of claimant, in a proceeding by her under the Workmen's Compensation Act to recover compensation for the death of her husband. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Harry J. Nesbit, for appellant: Grobunskie v. Shipman Koal Co. 80

Where the vital point is sought to Pa. Super. Ct. 349; Kuca v. Lehigh be inferred from certain basic or un- Valley Coal Co. 268 Pa. 163, 110 Atl. derlying facts which are said to have 731. been proved, the question whether or Mr. R. J. Lucksha, for appellee: not there is evidence to support them The issues involved are those of is one of law and may be reviewed; law. but if such evidence appears, the find- Shickley v. Philadelphia & R. Coal ing is one of fact, and is not the sub- & I. Co. 274 Pa. 360, 118 Atl. 255; ject of review.

Callihan v. Montgomery, 272 Pa. 56, Stahl v. Watson Coal Co. 268 Pa. 115 Atl. 889; Lupfer v. Baldwin Loco452, 112 Atl. 14; Rodman v. Smedley, motive Works, 269 Pa. 275, 112 Atl. 276 Pa. 296, 120 Atl. 266; Watson v. 458. Lehigh Valley Coal & Nav. Co. 273 Pa. The relation of employer and em251, 116 Atl. 889; Callihan v. Mont- ployee is not to be determined from gomery, 272 Pa. 56, 115 Atl. 889; Davis the exact time the whistle blows or v. P. R. R. 80 Pa. Super. Ct. 343; the gong sounds, but is presumed to (278 Pa. 552, 123 Atl. 505.) start before and to continue after the duced from sixty-five to seventeen, regular day's work, during such period as a result of local conditions. as the employee is surrounded by the Malky, with seven others, coming risks of his employment. Such rela

from Natrona, and other points, tion may even continue after the em

about 18 miles distant, applied for ployee is on his way home and off the employer's premises.

work, and was engaged by the Logan v. Pot Ridge Coal Co. 79 Pa,

weighmaster, the expense of the trip Super. Ct. 421; Dzikowska v. Superior to the mine being paid by the comSteel Co. 259 Pa. 578, L.R.A.1918F, pany. They arrived April 22, and 888, 103 Atl. 351; Lane v. Horn & H. from that time until the accident on Bkg. Co. 261 Pa. 329, 13 A.L.R. 963, the 28th remained continuously up104 Atl. 615, 17 N. C. C. A. 998;

on the property—with the exception Blouss v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 73

of one Vosnak, who, under escort, Pa. Super. Ct. 95; Spizzirri v. Krouse,

went home to secure the services of 73 Pa. Super. Ct. 476; Hale v. Savage Fire Brick Co. 75 Pa. Super. Ct. 454;

an additional man, and returned Granville v. Scranton Coal Co. 76 Pa.

with him. Lodgings were temporaSuper. Ct. 335; Schott v. Pennsylvania rily furnished in a part of the office R. Co. 76 Pa. Super. Ct. 582; Gurski building, but shortly afterward the v. Susquehanna Coal Co. 262 Pa. 1, 104 defendant, at its cost, constructed a Atl. 801; Haddock v. Edgewater Steel bunk house for their use upon the Co. 263 Pa. 120, 106 Atl. 196; Knorr v.

premises, about 20 feet from the Central R. Co. 268 Pa. 172, 110 Atl.

opening of the mine. Provisions 797; Strohl v. Eastern Pennsylvania R. Co. 270 Pa. 132, 113 Atl. 62; Chase

were ordered for the men, though v. Emery Mfg. Co. 271 Pa. 265, 113

it was intended to charge them with Atl. 840; Callihan v. Montgomery, 272 the expense thus incurred at pay Pa. 56, 115 Atl. 889; Maguire v. James day. A watchman was supplied to Lees & Sons Co. 273 Pa. 85, 116 Atl. prevent interference by outsiders. 679; Carlin v. Coxe Bros. & Co. 274 Pa. The referee found the miners were 38, 117 Atl. 405; International & G.

free to go to adjacent towns to live, N. R. Co. v. Ryan, 82 Tex. 565, 18 S.

but, as said on appeal from his rulW. 219; Sanders v. Charleston & W.

ing, "it was impossible, due to the C. R. Co. 97 S. C. 50, 81 S. E. 283.

circumstances then existing, for the Sadler, J., delivered the opinion of

men to secure board and lodging in the court:

the village near to the mine." This appeal is brought to review On April 28, the shanty was ocan award of the Workmen's Com- cupied for the first time by the impensation Board, approved by the ported men, whose actual labor in court below. Payment is resisted

digging coal had ended at 4, and was by the insurance carrier of defend

not to be resumed until 7 the folant company, because, as alleged, lowing day. A bomb was thrown the accident did not occur in the

through the window during the course of deceased's employment, night, and Malky, with two others, and was therefore not within the

was killed by the explosion which terms of the act, as held in the first

followed. Compensation was denied instance by the referee. The controlling facts found are practically by the referee, as already men

tioned, on the theory that the preswithout dispute, and the question for consideration is whether the law

ence of the men when injured was has been properly applied to them.

not required by the nature of their In 1921, a general strike was in

employment, but it was allowed by force throughout the bituminous

the board on appeal. The injury coal fields of western Pennsylvania.

did occur on the mining property, This resulted in the closing of de

and the fact that it was caused by fendant's mine in May of that year. the acts of strikers is immaterial, if It was reopened, in part, in 1922, the other elements necessary to a rethe number of employees being re- covery appear. Baum v. Industrial Commission, 288 Ill. 516, 6 A.L.R. clusion reached will be sustained, 1242, 123 N. E. 625.

for it is not our province to weigh “The provision [of Act June 2, conflicting testimony, or to decide 1915 (P. L. 736) art. 3, § 301] is what inferences should be drawn broad enough to include every in therefrom. Rodman v. Smedley, jury received on the premises of the 276 Pa. 296, 120 Atl. 266. employer, during the hours of em- Was the board justified in holding ployment, so long as the nature of the deceased to be in the course of the employment demands the em- employment when killed ? As obployee's presence there, regardless served, the actual hours of physical of whether his presence at the par

work for which one is engaged to ticular place where the injury oc- serve is not necessarily controlling. curred is actually required, if there It must be determined, from all the is nothing to prove a virtual aban- facts and circumstances, whether donment of the course of his em- the employee's presence

on the ployment by the injured person, or premises was required by the nature that, at the time of the accident, he of his service, for, unless this apwas engaged in something wholly pears, compensation is not permisforeign thereto." Callihan v. Mont- sible, though the injury occurs on gomery, 272 Pa. 56, 63, 115 Atl. 891. property controlled and used by the

The "hours of employment" are employer in his business. Rotolo v. not confined to the period for which Punxsutawney Furnace Co. 277 Pa. wages are paid, but may extend be- 70, 120 Atl. 704. In this instance, yond that time. Thus compensation the board found lodging elsewhere has been allowed where the injury impracticable, because of the feelwas inflicted before the beginning ing engendered by the strike. If, of the regular work (Dzikowska v. therefore, the performance of the Superior Steel Co. 259 Pa. 578, work contemplated was to be accomL.R.A.1918F, 888, 103 Atl. 351; To- plished, it became necessary to keep lan v. Philadelphia & R. Coal & I. the deceased on the ground. FurCo. 270 Pa. 12, 113 Atl. 67), after it ther, to assure the continuance of had ended (Carlin v. Coxe Bros. & the operations, it was requisite that Co. 274 Pa. 38, 117 Atl. 405), or outside interference be prevented, during intervening hours of rest for efforts to have the strike break(Hale v. Savage Fire Brick Co. 75 ers abandon their tasks were natuPa. Super. Ct. 454; Blouss v. Dela- rally to be expected, if the miners ware, L. & W. R. Co. 73 Pa. Super. went at large. In order that work Ct. 95; Granville v. Scranton Coal could be carried on, the employer Co. 76 Pa. Super. Ct. 335). And desired to control the movements of the employment does not end until his men during the entire twentya reasonable opportunity for depar- four hours, and, to insure a supply ture from the working place has of necessary labor, the holding of been afforded, which may cover the the workmen, in their off time, at a period required for transportation point to which access by others was home. Knorr v. Central R. Co. 268 at least made difficult, was required. Pa. 172, 110 Atl. 797; Logan v. Pot As said by the court below: “The Ridge Coal Co. 79 Pa. Super. Ct. conclusion is inevitable that the de421. It is a question of fact up to fendant was fully aware that if the what point the relation of master union men, whom they were taken and servant may be said to continue there to supplant, by virtue of the after the employee has ceased actual strike, were permitted to talk to the labor. This is a matter which is employees, they would leave their

primarily for the employment, either as a result of Workmen's compensation-con

referee or board to persuasion or intimidation, and the

determine, and, if finding.

company would be less able to opthere is evidence erate its mine; to obviate this consupporting a finding made, the con- tingency, the men were confined to

clusiveness of

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »