People v. Tiley

Belchek, C. C. The defendant was convicted of the crime of “burning insured property,” with intent to injure and defraud the insurers, and he appeals from the judgment, and an order denying him a new trial.

The property burned was a two-story wooden building and its contents, situate just outside of the limits of the city of San Bernardino, and known as the Arctic saloon building. It was owned by the defendant and one Myers, and the lower story was used by them as a saloon, and the upper story as a lodging-house. The building was insured for one thousand dollars, and the furniture, stock, [652]and fixtures for a like sum. The fire occurred between one and three o’clock in the morning of January 1,1889.

The defendant was not at the saloon at the time the C-fire was started, and had not been there for some hours before. He could not therefore himself have set the fire. This was not controverted at the trial, but it was claimed that he must have procured some one else to set it.

The evidence against the defendant was wholly circumstantial, and most of it was admitted against his objections and exceptions. Among other items of evidence objected to were the following: The prosecution called as a witness a woman known as Josie McFarland, who testified that she was a “sporting lady,” and kept a “ sporting-house” in the city of San Bernardino. She then proceeded to relate certain conversations, tending more or less to criminate defendant, some of which she said she had with him at her house eight or ten days before, and some eight or ten days after, the fire. The defendant was called as a witness in his own behalf, and denied that he had the conversations or made the statements related by the witness Josie, but admitted, on cross-examination, that he might have been at her house at the times named by her. The following questions were then asked and answered:—-

“ Q. When was the last time that you was at Josie McFarland’s? A. The 5th of July.

“ Q,. How long did you stay there when you were there? A. I was there probably fifteen minutes.

“ Q. Now, I will ask you the direct question: Didn’t you stay there all night on the night of the 4th of July, 1889? A. I did.”

The objection to the last question was, that it was “ irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and not responsive to the examination in chief, and not proper cross-examination, and is asked simply for the purpose of having a tendency to degrade the character of the witness,”