State v. Dorr
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions from the District Court, Rice, J. Indictment, for obtaining the horse of one Clark by false and fraudulent pretences. The government proved that the defendant exchanged his mare, for Clark’s horse, and that upon the exchange the defendant represented to Clark that the mare was his property, and that there was no claim of any person upon her; and that he also said he would warrant her to be free and clear of all incumbrances.
Read the full summary
On exceptions from the District Court, Rice, J. Indictment, for obtaining the horse of one Clark by false and fraudulent pretences. The government proved that the defendant exchanged his mare, for Clark’s horse, and that upon the exchange the defendant represented to Clark that the mare was his property, and that there was no claim of any person upon her; and that he also said he would warrant her to be free and clear of all incumbrances. The government further proved that the defendant had previously mortgaged the mare to one Holmes, to secure a note which was then unpaid; and that the…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
— This indictment is founded upon the statute, *500chap. 161, sect. 1, which is similar to that of 1821, chap. 13. The case of State v. Mills, 17 Maine, 211, very nearly resembles the one under consideration, and it cannot be distinguished in principle from that case.
There does not appear to be any just ground -of objection on the part of the defendant to the instructions, which were given to the jury. Nor is there perceived in the indictment any defect, which would justify an arrest of the judgment. As it was not necessary to prove the value of the defendant’s mare, the law did not require it to…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. KeyesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. ButlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891