People v. Helwig

McFARLAND, J.

Defendant was convicted of arson, and appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. There are no points and authorities or brief on behalf of appellant on file, and at the oral argu

[602]

ment his counsel did not contend that the evidence does not support the verdict or that thei trial court erred in instructing the jury or in any respect other than in two rulings made in respect to the testimony of the witness J. W. Jewell. The building which appellant was charged with burning was occupied by him as a lodging-house and restaurant; and he had in it some personal property which he had insured a few days before the fire for five hundred dollars. This personal property was not injured by the fire, which was extinguished before any considerable damage was done;- and the prosecution called the said witness Jewell, who testified that a few days after the fire he bought all this personal property from appellant for fifty dollars. Now, the argument of appellant’s counsel is, that the court afterwards refused to allow him to prove the value of the property at the time it was insured, and thus remove the impression that it was insured for more than its value. But the record does not show any foundation for this argument. Appellant was not prevented from showing the value of the property at the time of the insurance. The appellant himself, as a witness, testified, over the objection of the prosecution, very fully as to the value of the property and that it had cost him nearly eight hundred dollars; 'and it was shown that the insurance agent had examined the property when he fixed five hundred dollars as its value. The witness Jewell, after testifying that he was a dealer in secondhand furniture, was asked by the prosecution to state: “What you paid for the property and'how you arrive at the price— that is, your conversation with Mr. Helwig.” He testified that he went to see Helwig and asked him what he would take for the property, and Helwig said fifty dollars, whereupon witness gave him the money and took a bill of sale. Then, on cross-examination, appellant’s counsel asked him, “What do you consider the value of that! property?” To this question the prosecution objected, but the objection was overruled, and the witness went on to testify on the subject—saying that it was worth about one hundred dollars. After a number of questions by appellant’s counsel and answers by witness, the latter was asked, ‘ ‘ Could you buy them in the market for that price?” to which the district.attorney objected that “It does not tend to prove value and is not cross-examination, ’ ’ and the objection was overruled. Afterwards the witness said: “Bo